151–160 of 1001 posts
Current events aside, kinda insane how a Youtube channel with 6.6 million subscribers can get less than 500k views on a month old video
It basically just means that the average subscriber is watching ~2 of his videos a month.
I have an incredible sleaze radar. The first 10 seconds I saw this guy some 10 years ago I immediately knew he was a disgusting guy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course the issue is that Google is not just a “private party” like you or I. It is a 190,000 person organization worth almost 2 trillion dollars. They have a huge market share for monetized video hosting. If there were 100 nearly equally sized video platforms your argument would me much more persuasive, but at YouTube’s size, to me, they have an obligation to treat video creators with a greater degree of fairness…
> If Google does not want to do this, perhaps they are simply too big and should be broken up. If the people or the state want google to do this the should make a law to require it to do so. If they don’t comply then, please break them up, sue them, fine them.
[flagged]
It’s not even an allegation, it’s a news story. It’s pretty crazy that they would do this because of a story, not even criminal charges being brought. Apparently you don’t even have to get formally accused anymore. People say “it’s bad for advertising” but these acts of extreme abuse of moderation on YouTube have hugely contributed to other websites springing up. I have no doubt their market share overall is slipping…
Your spinning this as “just a story” is disingenuous. This “story” was investigated by top journalists for over a year, and published in a prestige news journal. Both the journalists working on the story and the paper that published it have their journalistic integrity at stake here. They wouldn’t publish this story unless they had some very credible sources to back them up.
So to correct you, this isn’t just an allegation. These are a series of very credible allegation which are under investigation by several authorities.
Of course it is up to you if you believe those allegations, I just hope you realize how credible these allegations are before you do so, and if you chose to not believe the victims, I hope you understand that you might have some unfortunate biases which makes you favor the accused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matt Taibbi brought up a case of a guy who put up montages of Trump saying the 2020 election was rigged cut up with clips of liberal media figures saying the Russians stole 2016. Pure trolling, kind of funny, 100% clips of public figures with no commentary. Demonetized.
I'm honestly confused what people get upset about using a private platform. If you want better accountability argue for an open platform uncontrolled by capital. What is the point of complaining while suggesting nothing? This conversation is even more useless than the old "marketplace of ideas" bullshit.
In this case, I’m no fan of Brand, but I’m even less a fan of YouTube’s apparent policy of “guilty till proven innocent” here. How about waiting till he and his accuser/s have had their day in a court, and jury of peers weighs the evidence and decides his guilt?
So has the internet completely done away with innocent until proven guilty? The primary benefit of things like MeToo was supposed to be people being able to take action against individuals who otherwise would have been expected to squash things due to undue influence on law enforcement, the media, and politics - like Harvey Weinstein. But in cases like this, it seems quite dystopic that a D-list celeb, likely with li…
"innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. Similar to when people cite the 1st amendment in situations where a private company is taking action, this phrase is meaningless here. A private company can do what it wants within the bounds of the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matt Taibbi brought up a case of a guy who put up montages of Trump saying the 2020 election was rigged cut up with clips of liberal media figures saying the Russians stole 2016. Pure trolling, kind of funny, 100% clips of public figures with no commentary. Demonetized.
[flagged]
https://www.racket.news/p/youtube-hits-orf-again-as-censorsh...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. Similar to when people cite the 1st amendment in situations where a private company is taking action, this phrase is meaningless here. A private company can do what it wants within the bounds of the law.
Then let’s change the law. It’s obvious over the past few years that companies can’t be trusted with freedom of association or freedom of speech. Let’s strip them of both. If you are incorporated (and therefore benefit from government-provided protection from liability and lower tax rates) then you no longer get to choose your customers; you’re a common carrier and must provide the same service to all customers. You…
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-th...