Before people start making conspiracies theories, I want to mention a reasonable explanation that answers the following question: how could it be in Youtube’s financial interest to block views from small channels that go viral? I think the answer must be related to an effort to reduce the amount of unauthorized copyrighted material or fraud on the platform. Currently the majority of such material/fraud on youtube is…
YouTube’s new censorship tactic is to limit streams that are too popular
11–20 of 21 posts
Re: YouTube’s new censorship tactic is to limit streams that are too popular
#12They don't want anything against the establishment to go viral. Web3 fixes this shit.
Re: YouTube’s new censorship tactic is to limit streams that are too popular
#13They don't want anything against the establishment to go viral. Web3 fixes this shit.
Let's see, what do I know that's decentralized?
Ah, Web1 and the Internet. HTTP, SMTP, FTP, etc. How are they doing? Ah, right, in practice the protocols people really care about like HTTP and SMTP became oligopolies.
What exactly does Web3 add to prevent this > problem?
Re: YouTube’s new censorship tactic is to limit streams that are too popular
#14They don't want anything against the establishment to go viral. Web3 fixes this shit.
Re: YouTube’s new censorship tactic is to limit streams that are too popular
#15This website reads like its affiliated with InfoWars.
Re: YouTube’s new censorship tactic is to limit streams that are too popular
#16This website reads like its affiliated with InfoWars.
Re: YouTube’s new censorship tactic is to limit streams that are too popular
#17Before people start making conspiracies theories, I want to mention a reasonable explanation that answers the following question: how could it be in Youtube’s financial interest to block views from small channels that go viral? I think the answer must be related to an effort to reduce the amount of unauthorized copyrighted material or fraud on the platform. Currently the majority of such material/fraud on youtube is…
So, ask yourself, why would YouTube need to throttle in the first place? Who is giving all these protest-streamers their first 300 viewers, making them rise in the live-streaming rankings and exposing millions to anti-mandate protests?
I think YouTube is under attack. I think they learned from live-streams during George Floyd protests, which, incidentally, I also was exposed to, even though not caring too much about that. I think throttling is an attempt to avoid the artificial boosting of divisive and polarizing content.
I really do not want to turn this into a conspiracy theory, though Mark Zuckerberg did offer for Facebook to make some changes, with the rest blacked out under "secret weapon" technology. After experiments done on Facebook on emotional contagion, surely, they must have ways to, instead of rile up an entire populace, calm them down. We are at an age where a single out-of-context video of alleged police brutality can shut down the economy.
Re: YouTube’s new censorship tactic is to limit streams that are too popular
#18This website reads like its affiliated with InfoWars.
Re: YouTube’s new censorship tactic is to limit streams that are too popular
#19They don't want anything against the establishment to go viral. Web3 fixes this shit.
Web3 solves this by decentralization. Let's see, what do I know that's decentralized? Ah, Web1 and the Internet. HTTP, SMTP, FTP, etc. How are they doing? Ah, right, in practice the protocols people really care about like HTTP and SMTP became oligopolies. What exactly does Web3 add to prevent this > problem?
These(software & legal arguments) all are irrelevant considering the fact that the web is hardware-wise not decentralized.I've seen this weak argument from smart people who argue that everyone can buy their own equipment, start their own ISP(which they can't, legally speaking, without going into a centralized process) and go through the process of creating one's own network that's being piped into the internet, but besides the fact that it defeats the point, ~nobody has access to that hardware in the consumer space.(There are few interesting projects existing but those are extreme outliers).
To continue your point and to reinforce it: software decentralization being useless, web3 will solve almost nothing, even in the best case scenario: where we defeat performance & "cultural" issues (NFTs, shittyverse, secure money, etc).It became a platform for the big players to show a shiny new big toy to the masses, one where security is improved; but security for the user is irrelevant from the POV of a company which seeks usage & entrapment.