4 ms·

>Revenue is down for YouTube, compared to last year. Maybe this has something to do with becoming the defacto censorship arm of the government and banning/bloc

>Revenue is down for YouTube, compared to last year. Maybe this has something to do with becoming the defacto censorship arm of the government and banning/blocking/demonetizing/driving away many customers and viewers.

CabSauce 4y ago
Maybe it has to do with extraterrestrial viewership being down. (If we're just making stuff up.)
- tick_tock_tick 4y ago
  You sure they seem to be up by my metrics?
- newsclues 4y ago
  It’s not made up, a favourite YouTuber was banned so I signed up for Rumble and shift my viewing to alternative platforms as much as possible.
  - Kye 4y ago
    I'm sure at least one kid who said their dad worked at Nintendo was telling the truth.
  - insanitybit 4y ago
    Oh wow, did Alphabet disclose this in their Q3 earnings?
numbsafari 4y ago
The main negative I have is just the opposite: YT’s algorithm persistently pushing crazy alien theories, Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson garbage into my feed, or worse. I wish they would censor that stuff more, because I’m not interested and no matter how many times I say “not interested”, it finds its way back in.
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  To clarify, I don't consider YT's algorithmic choices to be "censorship" one way or another. Censorship is blocking, banning and/or demonetizing videos and preventing consumers from proactively deciding what they want to watch. I fully agree that allowing users to curate what Youtube suggests to them would be a massive improvement over the current system. If you are interested in learning more about actual Youtube censorship, Matt Taibi has been covering the issue for almost 2 years. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-ford-fischer https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-ford-fischer
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  I either get "<Ideogogue> destroys <ideology>" videos or some really insane things, my favorite being videos from instructors who say they can teach you to fly if you give them thousands of dollars. By fly, they mean levitation and not airplanes.
olliej 4y ago
To clarify, you are saying that private corporations should be forced to pay for and carry whatever content your favorite political party wants? Because the evil censorship that you believe the government is forcing does not exist. There is no legislation and there is no planned legislation from any us political party banning content, but there’s a hell of a lot of “conservative” legislation aimed at forcing YouTube etc to host racist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-Semitic, and literal nazi content - in other words the exact BS the 1st amendment is meant to prevent the US gov from doing. Wait I lied, I forgot the GOP has got huge amounts of legislation that tries to ban acknowledging that LGBT folk are human, that slavery happened, that conservative states are to this day doing everything they can to limit which Americans get to vote, etc Given every time I see you commenting on HN it’s the same bigoted BS, that you then try to pass off as caring about treating things “fairly”, im going to stick with what I thought initially: you’re a bigot, and any time you claim that you are just interested in fairness it’s just another bit of bad faith BS rather than owning up to you being a bigot. It’s America, and HN has no rules against being a bigot, but I’d rather you just preface your arguments with “I don’t think lgbt people deserve equal rights, I believe that anyone that doesn’t let people use their services to spew forth claims of straight white Christian superiority is is somehow censorship violating the 1st amendment, and I think anything that counters this view is propaganda” JFC
- triviumslingah 4y ago
  They should just adhere to their own stated TOS.
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >To clarify, you are saying that private corporations should be forced to pay for and carry whatever content your favorite political party wants? I don't have a favorite political party, they are all trash (in the United States). But that isn't what I was saying. What I was saying was very straightforward: If you are a corporation that wants to maximize profits, driving away a segment of potential customers is a poor strategy.
  - mr_toad 4y ago
triviumslingah 4y ago
A possible factor, but a drop in the bucket. Gilder's book highlights structural factors, ex-economics that will deflate the ALPHA bubble.
dilap 4y ago
Downvoted, but seems like a reasonable comment to me. YouTube is still king, but their policies are unfriendly to creators and viewers alike. Over time, that will eat away at your audience.

CabSauce 4y ago

Maybe it has to do with extraterrestrial viewership being down. (If we're just making stuff up.)

tick_tock_tick 4y ago
You sure they seem to be up by my metrics?
newsclues 4y ago
It’s not made up, a favourite YouTuber was banned so I signed up for Rumble and shift my viewing to alternative platforms as much as possible.
- Kye 4y ago
  I'm sure at least one kid who said their dad worked at Nintendo was telling the truth.
- insanitybit 4y ago
  Oh wow, did Alphabet disclose this in their Q3 earnings?

numbsafari 4y ago

The main negative I have is just the opposite: YT’s algorithm persistently pushing crazy alien theories, Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson garbage into my feed, or worse. I wish they would censor that stuff more, because I’m not interested and no matter how many times I say “not interested”, it finds its way back in.

StanislavPetrov 4y ago
To clarify, I don't consider YT's algorithmic choices to be "censorship" one way or another. Censorship is blocking, banning and/or demonetizing videos and preventing consumers from proactively deciding what they want to watch. I fully agree that allowing users to curate what Youtube suggests to them would be a massive improvement over the current system. If you are interested in learning more about actual Youtube censorship, Matt Taibi has been covering the issue for almost 2 years. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-ford-fischer https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-ford-fischer
heavyset_go 4y ago
I either get "<Ideogogue> destroys <ideology>" videos or some really insane things, my favorite being videos from instructors who say they can teach you to fly if you give them thousands of dollars. By fly, they mean levitation and not airplanes.

olliej 4y ago

To clarify, you are saying that private corporations should be forced to pay for and carry whatever content your favorite political party wants? Because the evil censorship that you believe the government is forcing does not exist. There is no legislation and there is no planned legislation from any us political party banning content, but there’s a hell of a lot of “conservative” legislation aimed at forcing YouTube etc to host racist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-Semitic, and literal nazi content - in other words the exact BS the 1st amendment is meant to prevent the US gov from doing. Wait I lied, I forgot the GOP has got huge amounts of legislation that tries to ban acknowledging that LGBT folk are human, that slavery happened, that conservative states are to this day doing everything they can to limit which Americans get to vote, etc Given every time I see you commenting on HN it’s the same bigoted BS, that you then try to pass off as caring about treating things “fairly”, im going to stick with what I thought initially: you’re a bigot, and any time you claim that you are just interested in fairness it’s just another bit of bad faith BS rather than owning up to you being a bigot. It’s America, and HN has no rules against being a bigot, but I’d rather you just preface your arguments with “I don’t think lgbt people deserve equal rights, I believe that anyone that doesn’t let people use their services to spew forth claims of straight white Christian superiority is is somehow censorship violating the 1st amendment, and I think anything that counters this view is propaganda” JFC

triviumslingah 4y ago
They should just adhere to their own stated TOS.
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>To clarify, you are saying that private corporations should be forced to pay for and carry whatever content your favorite political party wants? I don't have a favorite political party, they are all trash (in the United States). But that isn't what I was saying. What I was saying was very straightforward: If you are a corporation that wants to maximize profits, driving away a segment of potential customers is a poor strategy.
- mr_toad 4y ago

triviumslingah 4y ago

A possible factor, but a drop in the bucket. Gilder's book highlights structural factors, ex-economics that will deflate the ALPHA bubble.

dilap 4y ago

Downvoted, but seems like a reasonable comment to me. YouTube is still king, but their policies are unfriendly to creators and viewers alike. Over time, that will eat away at your audience.