Live data from Hacker News

YouTube’s new censorship tactic is to limit streams that are too popular

reclaimthenet.org

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: YouTube’s new censorship tactic is to limit streams that are too popular

#11
post #10

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…

Depends if the creator is a hot potato. Even if you can make a lot of ad revenue off them it may not be good for your overall image. Just look at what is happening at Spotify.

Re: YouTube’s new censorship tactic is to limit streams that are too popular

#13

They 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?

Re: YouTube’s new censorship tactic is to limit streams that are too popular

#15
post #8

This website reads like its affiliated with InfoWars.

I've occasionally wondered who is behind reclaimthenet.org, but unlike most legitimate advocacy sites it seems very hard to find out who or what is behind it. Someone asked about this a while back and it looks like I'm not the only one who could not find anything [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23276430

Re: YouTube’s new censorship tactic is to limit streams that are too popular

#17
post #10

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…

I think the answer is still related to censorship. Streamers with lots of history also got throttled.

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

#19
post #13

They 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?

I'm the biggest web3 hater out there, but web1 or generally the "Internet" today is not decentralized at all.It's centralized through popular software protocols being used, the adressing system, the fact that you cannot "pipe yourself" to the internet without being approved at a certain level by a forementioned centralized process,etc.This is not even going into the legislative argument.

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.

Re: YouTube’s new censorship tactic is to limit streams that are too popular

#20
There's always a "reason" why an evil decree is actually quite logical and palatable - just look at Whoopie Goldberg's latest scandal. But that doesn't stop it from being evil. This is an outright attempt to close the net. An open web means that anyone can say anything, and that concept horrifies and terrifies FAANG. They want a total monopoly on thought, and any "excuse" they give for closing the web is just that - an excuse.
Post reply on HN