Youtube sucks the biggest balls

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Apropos of this topic, ScrewYouRube has now changed the "Your YouTube Comments" page to include not only a history of my comments which somehow pass unscathed through the algorithm, but also every single like I click on other people's comments. That's a LOT of chaff I don't want or need to see when reviewing my comments.

All this with no "community" notification, of course. =>[.]<=

Some companies were doing things similar to this before YouTube even existed. A few of them were foolish enough to store this data (coded) on your own computer instead of theirs. Imagine seeing every word/message, etc recorded, like some giant keylogger.

As to the primary topic on hand - hiding/denying/making information harder to find is not a solution, it is kicking the problem down the road, and possibly allowing the problem to get worse. If a large media company can't find a good way of getting the information they want out, then they probably shouldn't be in that line of business.

If most of this information/disinformation etc was openly shared, it would be better vetted and the bad information more easily proven wrong. Hiding it, only makes it more tempting and like someone running from the scene of a crime, makes people think there must be a bad reason for hiding it.

When someone lies to you, for instance, is your first instinct that they are protecting you, or doing it for good reasons?

Let me ask some rhetorical questions to anyone reading this post:

How many of you like a good scary movie? How many of you like a science fiction film with good special effects? How many of you like a good mystery movie?

Guess what, there are people that like conspiracies.

Don't hide anything, and there's very little to turn into a conspiracy.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Apropos of this topic, ScrewYouRube has now changed the "Your YouTube Comments" page to include not only a history of my comments which somehow pass unscathed through the algorithm, but also every single like I click on other people's comments. That's a LOT of chaff I don't want or need to see when reviewing my comments.

All this with no "community" notification, of course. =>[.]<=

Some companies were doing things similar to this before YouTube even existed. A few of them were foolish enough to store this data (coded) on your own computer instead of theirs. Imagine seeing every word/message, etc recorded, like some giant keylogger.

As to the primary topic on hand - hiding/denying/making information harder to find is not a solution, it is kicking the problem down the road, and possibly allowing the problem to get worse. If a large media company can't find a good way of getting the information they want out, then they probably shouldn't be in that line of business.

If most of this information/disinformation etc was openly shared, it would be better vetted and the bad information more easily proven wrong. Hiding it, only makes it more tempting and like someone running from the scene of a crime, makes people think there must be a bad reason for hiding it.

When someone lies to you, for instance, is your first instinct that they are protecting you, or doing it for good reasons?

Let me ask some rhetorical questions to anyone reading this post:

How many of you like a good scary movie? How many of you like a science fiction film with good special effects? How many of you like a good mystery movie?

Guess what, there are people that like conspiracies.

Don't hide anything, and there's very little to turn into a conspiracy.

Funny thing, YouRubeTube went right back to including likes and dislikes on my comment history again. Not sure how many users even look at the thing (it's at a Google link, not a YT link), but they've all but sucked the utility of the page out of it. =9[.]9=

I love youtube. Where else can you watch toy reviews with your kids or how to change the fan in your heating pump..

Some reason I can block commercal there but not on twitch which i'm boycottinng

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

I love youtube. Where else can you watch toy reviews with your kids or how to change the fan in your heating pump..

Some reason I can block commercal there but not on twitch which i'm boycottinng

Oh, don't get me wrong; there is much on YouTube I enjoy and also find useful. But it isn't as user-friendly as it used to be.

Oh, and the schizzy bastards have changed the Comment History format AGAIN, so no like/dislike reporting, which is good, but only if they leave it that way. =9[.]9=

Best not to comment. Free speech is dying is western world. Along with law and order property rights etc. I'd say in 20 years stasi reeducation camps.

Right, sorry for the long-ass delay in getting back to this. I finally got a more substantial paper to read, so chose to postpone it until later. Then life got in the way. My apologies. But I've finally got around to reading it now.

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

"

and so far you have also completely failed to prove, or even address, that censorship even helps.

Good thing there isn't just a single study on the matter now, is it? I will send you one more

So to begin with, let me clarify that this paper isn't about censorship, but about de-platforming. Also it's not about Youtube, but about Facebook. Still, while it isn't quite what I was asking for, it still goes against you.

Also, I'll reiterate that this debate is NOT merely about conspiracy theories and misinformation. The paper itself acknowledges that, noting that the platforms act against more than just misinformation -

"

As this statement clarifies, there are some harms Facebook judge sufficiently serious that they warrant intervention and active regulation. Disinformation is defined as only one of these

Youtube is the same. Its censorship does not only target misinformation. I will continue to hammer this point home in every post I make here because your attempts to railroad this thread into being entirely about misinformation and conspiracies are disingenuous and manipulative.

Anyway, the papers' argument is based on two case studies of a couple of Covid conspiracy theorists - one old and one new - who were removed from Facebook. And what did that achieve? Let the paper speak for itself -

Excerpts from Case 1:- (name changed to [1] in case the secret police take issue with me naming them, even though the paper itself does so)

"

Spoiler

Seven months after [1] de-platforming, there were 64 active Facebook pages and 40 active Facebook groups using his name. Thirty-three of these were using [1]’s image as their avatar. Confirming the international resonance of the [1] ‘brand’, one-third of pages were in non-English languages. In the seven days following his account removal on 30 April, his public mentions on Facebook increased by 84%, from 2833 to 5220. In the short-term this suggests one effect of de-platforming was to boost his profile on the platform, both in terms of a reaction from supporters and media articles shared about it – the aforementioned ‘Streisand effect’.

Examining creation dates for active [1]-affiliated profiles on Facebook (see Table 2) shows some are long-lasting, with 31 profiles created more than five years ago, albeit not necessarily active at the current time. However, there are also signals of new page and group creation on Facebook around the time [1]’s verified page was removed: of 18 public Facebook pages created in 2020, ten were created in May; the same month saw four new private groups in [1]’s name. This suggests this de-platforming episode was associated with a compensatory ‘blowback’ reaction, whereby multiple new profiles representing the banned persona were created.

Private groups have the largest audiences on Facebook out of all [1]-profiles, with an average of 6358 members and an estimated audience of 165,000, far greater than for public [1] groups (Table 3). That private group creation was far more common during 2020 implies a user-reaction to greater public and platform surveillance of their activity on Facebook.

Facebook groups affiliated with [1] have remained active and continued to grow following the intervention. The most active public group in 2021 posts, on average, 59 times per day to an audience of just over 7000; an increase of 47% in its membership since [1] was de-platformed.

This suggests this de-platforming episode was associated with a compensatory ‘blowback’ reaction, whereby multiple new profiles representing the banned persona were created

Thus, one unintended outcome of the de-platforming intervention may have been to increase the digital resilience of the targeted conspiratorial thought community

Equally important is how, for conspiratorial communities, de-platforming can be constructed as a ‘badge of honour’

These data suggest that, in terms of its social control outcomes, there is little empirical evidence that Facebook’s de-platforming had a deterrence effect.

Excerpts from Case 2:- (name changed to [2] in case the secret police take issue with me naming them, even though the paper itself does so)

"

Spoiler

Unlike [1], [2]’s Facebook profile did not have an established network of support pages and groups, nor a website. Analysis of public post mentions of her name shows prior to March 2020, there were only a handful of mentions on Facebook (see Figure 5). This changed from April onwards, when 81 Facebook posts shared YouTube links to her content

In the two months following the take-down, post mentions and user engagement on Facebook decreased markedly, with a sizeable reduction in the number of links being shared on the platform in her name, both from other Facebook pages and YouTube ... However, the suppression effect appeared to be temporary, with signs of revival from the end of 2020, where the number of Facebook video shares increased from approximately ten in October and November 2020 to over 60 in the next two months.

Over the mid-term, removing [2]’s direct connection with audiences on Facebook has probably increased her resilience as a messenger with multiple alliances spread across multiple other platforms linking back to Facebook. She has secured a position within an ‘alternative influence network’ as identified by Lewis (2018), whereby her ideology supplements a broader reactionary conspiratorial base.

From the Conclusion:-

"

The findings and insights set out in this article show de-platforming interventions by social media companies constitute a recurring and reinvented modality of social control, although there is a lack of independent evidence for their effectiveness.

There is certainly little evidence that de-platforming has triggered deterrence, or large-scale disruption or displacement away from Facebook.

So even your own paper fails to show much effectiveness from de-platforming, let alone censorship which is the topic of this thread. It might even make the problem worse. Let me return to the three things I asked for earlier -

1) You have to prove incapability among the majority of the population (failed, the survey shared earlier shows only a minority of people in most countries believe in most of the conspiracies they were questioned about).

2) You have to prove censorship protects from said incapability (not quite addressed, but the latest link does show the related strategy of de-platforming isn't working either, and may even backfire).

3) You have to prove YT's censorship has produced positive results (still unanswered).

And note that, once again, this censorship is NOT only against misinformation.

Lastly, by a curious coincidence, we're now picking up this issue in a world where YT has also just clamped down further on free expression by hiding the Dislikes on all its videos. Unsurprisingly, that hasn't exactly gone down well with the internet. It's like YT itself wants to sabotage your argument lol.

"

feike wrote:

derailed into a hardcore duel about conspiracy, complete with links proving "facts" and stuff

I've been trying to bring it back from said derailment. That's why every one of my responses to them has stressed that conspiracies and misinformation are NOT the only things they censor. But they continue to keep hammering away at that one cause, despite failing to make the argument for it even in that case. I don't want to only talk conspiracies, the post is about censorship in general.

The contrast between these vids by YT is so absurd. Reality really is sometimes stranger than fiction.

Youtube's CEO winning the 2021 Free Expression Award (which was sponsored by Youtube itself lmao!) - https://youtu.be/xDcvPf78g1k

Unsurprisingly, the video is HEAVILY disliked (not that that's visible anymore).

Half a year later, Youtube announces it's hiding all Dislikes on the platform - https://youtu.be/kxOuG8jMIgI

Anyone using the add-on (no idea how long that'll keep working) can see how well that's gone down for them.

This is hilarious lmao. You can't make this shit up! xD