6 ms·

Just watched the video, read the thread. Here are some thoughts. First of all, the video uploader is promoting a competitor to YouTube. This is not disclaimed

Just watched the video, read the thread. Here are some thoughts. First of all, the video uploader is promoting a competitor to YouTube. This is not disclaimed clearly. The video goes over criticism to the CIA, which are fair enough. But it takes some things as axioms, for example, that only the US are interfering/meddling in the world. He presents it as "the US is the bad guy and the world would be fair without the CIA." Which also is a form of propaganda. It's a bit näive to not see this as anti-government propaganda. The crude reality is: true democracies never existed, and influence between countries is as old as society. About the "censorship" itself: Youtube's goals is not the same as the authors, why would they promote something that is not what they want to be? They have a huge infant audience, they want to be advertiser-friendly. This is not something hidden or unknown. They did not delete the video, but they shouldn't promote it. No fault in my eyes. And at the same time, the buzz around saying "my video is being suppressed" get more views and is even a badge to prove the content "hits where it hurts". Just like rock bands in the 80s/90s would go after being censored or considered 18+ just to sell more.

jeanlucas 6y ago
Don't get me wrong, it's a great video with lots of research in the most known CIA meddling like Cuba, Latin America, Iran, and so on. But it's literally nothing new to anyone with any political knowledge that countries meddle in each other business all the time. The difference is that it is exposed in a way to make it sensationalist.
- dredds 6y ago
  The buildup to the Iraq war (WMD) was sensationalist. Propaganda propagated by powerful corporations on the American people to instigate a fake excuse for war. If it's sensationalist to speak truth regards power of the US propaganda machine, them yes, there is no other way. One cannot downplay the fact that the machine is all-powerful. The internet was supposed to be the antidote to old propaganda, but corporations have taken over the mainstream internet, and wield even more power over our lives. Again, we should not downplay this fact.
- leto_ii 6y ago
  > But it's literally nothing new to anyone with any political knowledge It's therefore even more surprising and alarming that generally available information still gets shadow banned.
inatreecrown2 6y ago
the video uploader is promoting his own competitor to youtube, a streaming service. that is mentioned in the end of the video, and it should really be mentioned in the thread title.
- odensc 6y ago
  There are dozens of YouTubers on that platform who regularly advertise it in their videos on YouTube. Doubt that has anything to do with this.
  - jeanlucas 6y ago
    It doesn't, but it also means the author has a bias against YouTube to promote the other platform.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  There are many videos promoting competitors to YouTube that don't get shadow banned, nor visits from Homeland Security. For example The Legal Eagle channel always promotes a competitor to YouTube, as paid advertising in each video.
  - jeanlucas 6y ago
    You're mixing the arguments. I did not say he is getting Homeland Security visits because of a previous video, he got it because he is criticizing the country he lives in, and that country does not and never had opening to do that. And I did not mean that his video is being unlisted because of Nebula, the reason is because of the kind of content. My point about Nebula/YouTube is that his critics of YouTube are biased, since he gains something if people move to Nebula (in the long and the short run). Legal Eagle fan here \o
- jeanlucas 6y ago
  Yeah, I did not mean that it's being shadowbanned because of it, but his criticism (to YouTube) are biased by definition.
7636528A 6y ago
> It takes some things as axioms, for example, that only the US are interfering/meddling in the world Where does it claim that? I'm not saying you are lying. I didn't watch it properly so I may have missed it. > It's a bit näive to not see this as anti-government propaganda. I don't know what that means. Are you saying that something in the video is untrue or just that it contains facts that make the US government look bad? Would you describe a similar video criticizing an enemy of the US government (whether another government, terrorist organisation, or something else) in the same way? > Youtube's goals is not the same as the authors I think the problem here is if YouTube's goal is to help the government who (according to the author) is Google's customer. YouTube is under no obligation to do anything to help spread the author's video, but they should definitely be criticised for working with an organisation committing horrible abuses and acts of violence.
- jeanlucas 6y ago
  >Where does it claim that? I'm not saying you are lying. I didn't watch it properly so I may have missed it. All the conflicts are shown as one-sided. Like the Iran one, where he mentions US/CIA interference, but doesn't mention all other players that also wanted to interfere there, because Iran and oil were essential to the global scenario of Cold War (and eventually a not cold war). >I don't know what that means. Are you saying that something in the video is untrue or just that it contains facts that make the US government look bad? Would you describe a similar video criticizing an enemy of the US government (whether another government, terrorist organisation, or something else) in the same way? I'm saying the video does indeed make an extra effort to make the US government / CIA look bad indeed. The thing is, looks like there is an editorial choice to make that point, and the video went after it. No wonder it can/will raise eyebrows in the US government / CIA. Which is a completely sepparate problem from youtube/online censoring. >I think the problem here is if YouTube's goal is to help the government who (according to the author) is Google's customer. YouTube is under no obligation to do anything to help spread the author's video, but they should definitely be criticised for working with an organisation committing horrible abuses and acts of violence. Indeed. That's exactly what I mean. YouTube is in close ties with the government, and also led by advertisers, they explicitly want to make it more friendly to the most viewers possible. And that kind of documentary is not aligned with that goal, thus will not be promoted. But it is important to notice the difference between promoting it and hiding it actively. I can't find the video while searching for the exact title.
kossTKR 6y ago
Wow, your post is beyond sinister! 1) He did not imply the world would be "good" if the CIA didn't exist. That's a ridiculous take and is smearing a very well researched channel. 2) Youtube didn't just stop promoting this piece. They are hiding it. You can't find it even if you search for it. 3) He's not just trying to "create a buzz", department of homeland security paid him a visit now his videos are disappearing - if you think that's not worrisome, well damn! 4) Implying that if you create an axiom that has not been "state approved" then you deserve to get delisted? Insanely dystopian because you more or less don't seem to care and justify state intervention in private well researched but pretty bland political historical takes. His views are not that radical. Almost standard in many European countries and that result in some state agency coming to his door and threatening him? Like what??
- jeanlucas 6y ago
  Replying point by point: (1) He does imply that in the script yes, in several ways. Pay close attention to moments like "like a good democracy should never have interference". (2) The bit about YouTube hiding is good point taken, I didn't notice that, I thought it was just not showing up in recommended videos. (3) He is also trying to create a buzz, the homeland security visit is not related to that video. My point is not that it is not worrisome, but that this is nothing new. The US is like this since the beginning. Have you ever seen what happens to journalists that crack open the NSA and CIA? (4) And it does not imply that, but implies that YouTube is not a platform for free speech, as it has never been. No novelty here. Surprisingly if it was the TV times this wouldn't even go live, no it is going live. The system is changing little by little, but doesn't mean it is 100% free speech. Never was.
  - 6510 6y ago
    There use to be a reasonable channel by a retired CIA employee. His many videos simply showed pictures of a country along with the declassified text about the mission. The channel one day just vanished. The "why?" is left up to our imagination. All I know is that making the channel took a good bit of effort and the content was historically significant.
- 6y ago
boudin 6y ago
I didn't see any claim in the video that the CIA is the only organization of such sort. It might make you feel this way because it's entirely focused on the CIA. It didn't claim neither that the world would be fair without the CIA. It's definitely one-sided and is just a quick overview of the CIA (but you wouldn't expect more from a short video on such a big subject), but I fail to see how it is propaganda.
- jeanlucas 6y ago
  My point is not that it clears all other organizations, but doesn't even mention one other. Which is an editorial choice. edit: not only that, but also implies that the CIA actions are one-sided, as in other players were not trying to mess and do the same to harm the US in the same actions (let's say, Iran).
  - kortex 6y ago
    > but doesn't even mention one other. Which is an editorial choice. That's some weird hot take on a 20 min video titled "The CIA is a Terrorist Organization". He's obligated to mention Moussad, KGB/FSB et al, because "both sides"? Also last I checked, "we only did shady shit cause they did shady shit" isn't much os a defense anyway.
snowron6 6y ago
>First of all, the video uploader is promoting a competitor to YouTube. This is not disclaimed clearly. If you're referring to the nebula ad at the end, he and other youtubers have been advertising it for months, if not years now. No other video with a nebula ad has been shadow banned like this. Also, trying to paint this as "Youtube isn't promoting it" is disingenuous. Youtube is hiding it from people who've explicitly asked to be notified about his videos.
- jeanlucas 6y ago
  Not my point, my point is that because he has other sponsors that heads-on compete with Youtube, his views about YouTube are not unbiased. He gains something when he promotes Nebula, in hopes to gain even more than what he makes on YouTube. Now about the promoting, it is my bad, I thought that YouTube wasn't showing it in frontpage, not that it was literally removed from search. I tried searching for the video and it indeed doesn't show in the results. That's a negative point for YouTube.
gtsop 6y ago
I saw the video as well. > First of all, the video uploader is promoting a competitor to YouTube. This is not disclaimed clearly. You are starting of by literally the last thing on the video which is the promotion of the uploader's income stream, a standard practice for full-time youtubers... to prove what? > The video goes over criticism to the CIA, which are fair enough. But it takes some things as axioms, for example, that only the US are interfering/meddling in the world. He presents it as "the US is the bad guy and the world would be fair without the CIA." Which also is a form of propaganda. There is no such claim in the video. Very dishonest of you to missinform people about it. Apart from that, I agree with your overall conclusion. Youtube is not a public interest organization, they are a private company making money from ads, it is their right to do as they will on their platform. The sooner people realize that, the better. Beyond that, there is an argument here for having transparent practices. There is nothing preventing youtube from saying the truth about what they do.
- jeanlucas 6y ago
  >The sooner people realize that, the better. Beyond that, there is an argument here for having transparent practices. There is nothing preventing youtube from saying the truth about what they do. Indeed. About the criticism, it really sounds like that to me in the video. It implies in the way it is written, and I don't wanna go over details of the script, but pay attention to moments when he mentions "like a good democracy" and so on. The current status of world dominance/power is an evolution of previous iterations (be it good or bad). But we never had a democratic system the CIA is breaking. The video is presented in a way that if you don't know all of that you will assume the CIA is making the world bad. It is just one more player amongst many, and just a continuation of something that is going on since the Romans.
  - gtsop 6y ago
    > The current status of world dominance/power is an evolution of previous iterations (be it good or bad). But we never had a democratic system the CIA is breaking. True > The video is presented in a way that if you don't know all of that you will assume the CIA is making the world bad. Maybe true, but this is an unintended consequence. In no point does the uploader make such a claim or presents evidence to make you think of that. It's only by absence of mentions one can derrive to this false conclusion (that cia is the only such player) Final thought, although I get your criticism of the uploader, let's say "forgeting" other players as CIA, I would argue they are the biggest and most impactful contemporary agency. Thus, although not the only one, sure the one to be most concerned about. Thus his lack of mentioning other players isn't that of a con to me. My argument is based on what we publicly know of these agencies.
freeflight 6y ago
> And at the same time, the buzz around saying "my video is being suppressed" get more views and is even a badge to prove the content "hits where it hurts". The videos on that channel regularly have hundreds of thousands of views with many videos even having millions of them a long time before it had this "badge" to "get more views" [0]. So while it could be an attempt to utilize the Streisand effect for marketing, I consider that rather unlikely because the channel really doesn't need it and I can't think of a way the creator could force YouTube to reliably delist the video to make it a viable PR tactic. [0] https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/UCJm2TgUqtK1_NLBrjNQ1P-w https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/UCJm2TgUqtK1_NLBrjNQ...
esarbe 6y ago
> They have a huge infant audience, And that's so wrong in so many ways.
unethical_ban 6y ago
> that only the US are interfering/meddling in the world They didn't claim that. You inferred it. >Youtube's goals is not the same as the authors, why would they promote something that is not what they want to be? Because YT doesn't come out and say "We don't want controversial content on our platform. We don't want to question the ruling order of the country from which we operate". If they did, it would be a bit more honest. I don't see why you seem to be defending their quasi-suppressive behavior.

jeanlucas 6y ago

Don't get me wrong, it's a great video with lots of research in the most known CIA meddling like Cuba, Latin America, Iran, and so on. But it's literally nothing new to anyone with any political knowledge that countries meddle in each other business all the time. The difference is that it is exposed in a way to make it sensationalist.

dredds 6y ago
The buildup to the Iraq war (WMD) was sensationalist. Propaganda propagated by powerful corporations on the American people to instigate a fake excuse for war. If it's sensationalist to speak truth regards power of the US propaganda machine, them yes, there is no other way. One cannot downplay the fact that the machine is all-powerful. The internet was supposed to be the antidote to old propaganda, but corporations have taken over the mainstream internet, and wield even more power over our lives. Again, we should not downplay this fact.
leto_ii 6y ago
> But it's literally nothing new to anyone with any political knowledge It's therefore even more surprising and alarming that generally available information still gets shadow banned.

inatreecrown2 6y ago

the video uploader is promoting his own competitor to youtube, a streaming service. that is mentioned in the end of the video, and it should really be mentioned in the thread title.

odensc 6y ago
There are dozens of YouTubers on that platform who regularly advertise it in their videos on YouTube. Doubt that has anything to do with this.
- jeanlucas 6y ago
  It doesn't, but it also means the author has a bias against YouTube to promote the other platform.
tsimionescu 6y ago
There are many videos promoting competitors to YouTube that don't get shadow banned, nor visits from Homeland Security. For example The Legal Eagle channel always promotes a competitor to YouTube, as paid advertising in each video.
- jeanlucas 6y ago
  You're mixing the arguments. I did not say he is getting Homeland Security visits because of a previous video, he got it because he is criticizing the country he lives in, and that country does not and never had opening to do that. And I did not mean that his video is being unlisted because of Nebula, the reason is because of the kind of content. My point about Nebula/YouTube is that his critics of YouTube are biased, since he gains something if people move to Nebula (in the long and the short run). Legal Eagle fan here \o
jeanlucas 6y ago
Yeah, I did not mean that it's being shadowbanned because of it, but his criticism (to YouTube) are biased by definition.

7636528A 6y ago

> It takes some things as axioms, for example, that only the US are interfering/meddling in the world Where does it claim that? I'm not saying you are lying. I didn't watch it properly so I may have missed it. > It's a bit näive to not see this as anti-government propaganda. I don't know what that means. Are you saying that something in the video is untrue or just that it contains facts that make the US government look bad? Would you describe a similar video criticizing an enemy of the US government (whether another government, terrorist organisation, or something else) in the same way? > Youtube's goals is not the same as the authors I think the problem here is if YouTube's goal is to help the government who (according to the author) is Google's customer. YouTube is under no obligation to do anything to help spread the author's video, but they should definitely be criticised for working with an organisation committing horrible abuses and acts of violence.

jeanlucas 6y ago
>Where does it claim that? I'm not saying you are lying. I didn't watch it properly so I may have missed it. All the conflicts are shown as one-sided. Like the Iran one, where he mentions US/CIA interference, but doesn't mention all other players that also wanted to interfere there, because Iran and oil were essential to the global scenario of Cold War (and eventually a not cold war). >I don't know what that means. Are you saying that something in the video is untrue or just that it contains facts that make the US government look bad? Would you describe a similar video criticizing an enemy of the US government (whether another government, terrorist organisation, or something else) in the same way? I'm saying the video does indeed make an extra effort to make the US government / CIA look bad indeed. The thing is, looks like there is an editorial choice to make that point, and the video went after it. No wonder it can/will raise eyebrows in the US government / CIA. Which is a completely sepparate problem from youtube/online censoring. >I think the problem here is if YouTube's goal is to help the government who (according to the author) is Google's customer. YouTube is under no obligation to do anything to help spread the author's video, but they should definitely be criticised for working with an organisation committing horrible abuses and acts of violence. Indeed. That's exactly what I mean. YouTube is in close ties with the government, and also led by advertisers, they explicitly want to make it more friendly to the most viewers possible. And that kind of documentary is not aligned with that goal, thus will not be promoted. But it is important to notice the difference between promoting it and hiding it actively. I can't find the video while searching for the exact title.

kossTKR 6y ago

Wow, your post is beyond sinister! 1) He did not imply the world would be "good" if the CIA didn't exist. That's a ridiculous take and is smearing a very well researched channel. 2) Youtube didn't just stop promoting this piece. They are hiding it. You can't find it even if you search for it. 3) He's not just trying to "create a buzz", department of homeland security paid him a visit now his videos are disappearing - if you think that's not worrisome, well damn! 4) Implying that if you create an axiom that has not been "state approved" then you deserve to get delisted? Insanely dystopian because you more or less don't seem to care and justify state intervention in private well researched but pretty bland political historical takes. His views are not that radical. Almost standard in many European countries and that result in some state agency coming to his door and threatening him? Like what??

jeanlucas 6y ago
Replying point by point: (1) He does imply that in the script yes, in several ways. Pay close attention to moments like "like a good democracy should never have interference". (2) The bit about YouTube hiding is good point taken, I didn't notice that, I thought it was just not showing up in recommended videos. (3) He is also trying to create a buzz, the homeland security visit is not related to that video. My point is not that it is not worrisome, but that this is nothing new. The US is like this since the beginning. Have you ever seen what happens to journalists that crack open the NSA and CIA? (4) And it does not imply that, but implies that YouTube is not a platform for free speech, as it has never been. No novelty here. Surprisingly if it was the TV times this wouldn't even go live, no it is going live. The system is changing little by little, but doesn't mean it is 100% free speech. Never was.
- 6510 6y ago
  There use to be a reasonable channel by a retired CIA employee. His many videos simply showed pictures of a country along with the declassified text about the mission. The channel one day just vanished. The "why?" is left up to our imagination. All I know is that making the channel took a good bit of effort and the content was historically significant.
6y ago

boudin 6y ago

I didn't see any claim in the video that the CIA is the only organization of such sort. It might make you feel this way because it's entirely focused on the CIA. It didn't claim neither that the world would be fair without the CIA. It's definitely one-sided and is just a quick overview of the CIA (but you wouldn't expect more from a short video on such a big subject), but I fail to see how it is propaganda.

jeanlucas 6y ago
My point is not that it clears all other organizations, but doesn't even mention one other. Which is an editorial choice. edit: not only that, but also implies that the CIA actions are one-sided, as in other players were not trying to mess and do the same to harm the US in the same actions (let's say, Iran).
- kortex 6y ago
  > but doesn't even mention one other. Which is an editorial choice. That's some weird hot take on a 20 min video titled "The CIA is a Terrorist Organization". He's obligated to mention Moussad, KGB/FSB et al, because "both sides"? Also last I checked, "we only did shady shit cause they did shady shit" isn't much os a defense anyway.

snowron6 6y ago

>First of all, the video uploader is promoting a competitor to YouTube. This is not disclaimed clearly. If you're referring to the nebula ad at the end, he and other youtubers have been advertising it for months, if not years now. No other video with a nebula ad has been shadow banned like this. Also, trying to paint this as "Youtube isn't promoting it" is disingenuous. Youtube is hiding it from people who've explicitly asked to be notified about his videos.

jeanlucas 6y ago
Not my point, my point is that because he has other sponsors that heads-on compete with Youtube, his views about YouTube are not unbiased. He gains something when he promotes Nebula, in hopes to gain even more than what he makes on YouTube. Now about the promoting, it is my bad, I thought that YouTube wasn't showing it in frontpage, not that it was literally removed from search. I tried searching for the video and it indeed doesn't show in the results. That's a negative point for YouTube.

gtsop 6y ago

I saw the video as well. > First of all, the video uploader is promoting a competitor to YouTube. This is not disclaimed clearly. You are starting of by literally the last thing on the video which is the promotion of the uploader's income stream, a standard practice for full-time youtubers... to prove what? > The video goes over criticism to the CIA, which are fair enough. But it takes some things as axioms, for example, that only the US are interfering/meddling in the world. He presents it as "the US is the bad guy and the world would be fair without the CIA." Which also is a form of propaganda. There is no such claim in the video. Very dishonest of you to missinform people about it. Apart from that, I agree with your overall conclusion. Youtube is not a public interest organization, they are a private company making money from ads, it is their right to do as they will on their platform. The sooner people realize that, the better. Beyond that, there is an argument here for having transparent practices. There is nothing preventing youtube from saying the truth about what they do.

jeanlucas 6y ago
>The sooner people realize that, the better. Beyond that, there is an argument here for having transparent practices. There is nothing preventing youtube from saying the truth about what they do. Indeed. About the criticism, it really sounds like that to me in the video. It implies in the way it is written, and I don't wanna go over details of the script, but pay attention to moments when he mentions "like a good democracy" and so on. The current status of world dominance/power is an evolution of previous iterations (be it good or bad). But we never had a democratic system the CIA is breaking. The video is presented in a way that if you don't know all of that you will assume the CIA is making the world bad. It is just one more player amongst many, and just a continuation of something that is going on since the Romans.
- gtsop 6y ago
  > The current status of world dominance/power is an evolution of previous iterations (be it good or bad). But we never had a democratic system the CIA is breaking. True > The video is presented in a way that if you don't know all of that you will assume the CIA is making the world bad. Maybe true, but this is an unintended consequence. In no point does the uploader make such a claim or presents evidence to make you think of that. It's only by absence of mentions one can derrive to this false conclusion (that cia is the only such player) Final thought, although I get your criticism of the uploader, let's say "forgeting" other players as CIA, I would argue they are the biggest and most impactful contemporary agency. Thus, although not the only one, sure the one to be most concerned about. Thus his lack of mentioning other players isn't that of a con to me. My argument is based on what we publicly know of these agencies.

freeflight 6y ago

> And at the same time, the buzz around saying "my video is being suppressed" get more views and is even a badge to prove the content "hits where it hurts". The videos on that channel regularly have hundreds of thousands of views with many videos even having millions of them a long time before it had this "badge" to "get more views" [0]. So while it could be an attempt to utilize the Streisand effect for marketing, I consider that rather unlikely because the channel really doesn't need it and I can't think of a way the creator could force YouTube to reliably delist the video to make it a viable PR tactic. [0] https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/UCJm2TgUqtK1_NLBrjNQ1P-w https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/UCJm2TgUqtK1_NLBrjNQ...

esarbe 6y ago

> They have a huge infant audience, And that's so wrong in so many ways.

unethical_ban 6y ago

> that only the US are interfering/meddling in the world They didn't claim that. You inferred it. >Youtube's goals is not the same as the authors, why would they promote something that is not what they want to be? Because YT doesn't come out and say "We don't want controversial content on our platform. We don't want to question the ruling order of the country from which we operate". If they did, it would be a bit more honest. I don't see why you seem to be defending their quasi-suppressive behavior.