[video=youtube;RslP2HGBqWI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RslP2HGBqWI[/video]
I know people on FP don't like Crowder very much but regardless of your views on him, what is happening to him and many other conservative videos is terrible. Disappointed that YouTube is doing this.
Pretty concerning if true, but google really only comes up with conservative sources thus far so I'll withhold judgement for awhile. It's not like Youtube hasn't done really dumb things before just based off of their algorithms.
Like it's not his main point, that would be being blocked from users viewing via restricted mode, but when it comes to subscribers not getting content sent to them, that's a problem Youtube has had for a loooong time.
youtube has a young demographic, and young people tend to vote democrat if at all. youtube's algorithms show more popular channels first, and seeing as even conservatives don't like listening to other conservatives (the really vocal ones tend to be pretty extreme, and that goes for both sides though it seems liberals are more keen to listen to extreme viewpoints) it stands to reason that unpopular conservative videos wouldn't show up all that often.
I probably agree with you, but had you watched the video?
YouTube specifically restricted Crowder's and Prager Univ's videos so that they could not be viewed under specific circumstances (schools, age restriction, work places, military bases, etc.)
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51328751]I probably agree with you, but had you watched the video?
YouTube specifically restricted Crowder's and Prager Univ's videos so that they could not be viewed under specific circumstances (schools, age restriction, work places, military bases, etc.)[/QUOTE]
And he makes it very clear that because they broadcast over radio, they adhere to FCC guidelines on the show.
All of the stuff outside of restriction is just YouTube being a legitimately poorly-managed site, though. I wouldn't go so far to call it malice as much as it is ineptitude and negligence.
Just out of curiosity, from outside of a business perspective (so let's say YT is left wing and wants to boost left wing and ignore right wing), why should we care? Do you guys believe as a company YT needs to follow any sort of freedom of speech laws/obligations?
[QUOTE=Rossy167;51329016]Just out of curiosity, from outside of a business perspective (so let's say YT is left wing and wants to boost left wing and ignore right wing), why should we care? Do you guys believe as a company YT needs to follow any sort of freedom of speech laws/obligations?[/QUOTE]
Depends what you mean by 'needs'
Legally? No. Morally? Yes, given how important a platform they have become, within reason.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;51329016]Do you guys believe as a company YT needs to follow any sort of freedom of speech laws/obligations?[/QUOTE]
no, corporate stifling is fine for a platform meant for user-created content on your social media network :))
my recommended videos are filled with nutshack memes but if youtube wants to block videos due to their own political views, and that's a-ok
[QUOTE=Rossy167;51329016]Do you guys believe as a company YT needs to follow any sort of freedom of speech laws/obligations?[/QUOTE]
If they are big enough and in a position to sway public opinion, then yes, I think they need to be held to a high standard and have a moral obligation to uphold free speech.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51329044]Depends what you mean by 'needs'
Legally? No. Morally? Yes, given how important a platform they have become, within reason.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, YouTube can do this and we can also say fuck you for doing it. I don't believe they are though, it's more likely that it just has masses of liberals in comparison to conservatives and conservatives demand less political videos than liberals.
If they are doing then idk if I have a problem with them smothering the notions of guys like Alex Jonesesque people, in reality we do need a movement away from the hateful and anti-intellectual politics that have infected the right. Nobody seems to be looking at all these Trump supporters, saying it's ok to say all the things he says, and Michael Gove saying he's fed up of experts and their expert opinions, and then thinking "there is something seriously wrong here" like these opinions aren't just different from my own, they're outright unhealthy.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;51329016]Just out of curiosity, from outside of a business perspective (so let's say YT is left wing and wants to boost left wing and ignore right wing), why should we care? Do you guys believe as a company YT needs to follow any sort of freedom of speech laws/obligations?[/QUOTE]
Yeah I do think they should. All major search engines and social media sites ought to, in my opinion.
If you want to see this in action watch a few videos by some really right channel and look at your recommended. I looked up some shot by Gavin McInnes and now get recommended videos on the effects of male priveledge on women
[QUOTE=Rossy167;51329016]Just out of curiosity, from outside of a business perspective (so let's say YT is left wing and wants to boost left wing and ignore right wing), why should we care? Do you guys believe as a company YT needs to follow any sort of freedom of speech laws/obligations?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/how-facebook-could-tilt-the-2016-election-donald-trump/478764/[/url]
This article is about facebook but since youtube is linked to google+ and could do similar tricks its pretty relevant. Most forms of social media could attempt similar things.
Its not only possible for social media to influence voting behavior but its also possible to target the voting behavior of specific demographics.
How would you feel if specific demographics started getting videos that told them to go out and vote?
The future is gerrymandering without borders.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;51329016]Just out of curiosity, from outside of a business perspective (so let's say YT is left wing and wants to boost left wing and ignore right wing), why should we care? Do you guys believe as a company YT needs to follow any sort of freedom of speech laws/obligations?[/QUOTE]
The last thing we need in the internet age is an enormous company like Google to effectively become the ministry of truth
If there isn't a law about this there absolutely need to be one
Tbh we're at a time where people are celebrating media outlets publicly endorsing political candidates because they don't like the other one. To expect Internet outlets such as YouTube to be held to standard of such would be hypocritical when we don't expect the same of television and newspaper.
It swings both ways and stems from deeper rooted problems in society right now such as our incoherent stances on censorship and free speech. It's an amazing example of horseshoe theory at work, where both sides are willing to censor the other in hopes of the lack of opposition validating their opinions. It's a beautiful result of the internet culture we have created and arguably an interesting side effect of the current approach to anti bullying movements.
Arguably to truly be inclusive and non partisan we have to allow all forms of expression, even what we may consider hate speech or incomplete conclusions to be voiced.
My biggest fear of this all is the justification and validation it gives to the ideals of a politically controlled media, where it is acceptable to censor and restrict forms of expression for the security of our political correctness.
I'm OK with biased media, as long as we know it's biased. Media ran by people after all, and it's literally impossible for a person to be unbiased.
As long as we all know the biases of our sources then we're fine. I watch Owen Jones' YT channel and read the Guardian knowing they're left wing, I watch Philip Defranco knowing he's fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Objective reporting is: this happened, end of.
But even then that can be distorted, even Trump's "Pussygate" was seen in different lights by different reporters and people.
I think it's probably best (if they're doing it) YouTube are either stopped from doing this, or are transparent about doing so. If they do it and don't tell then that's simply not OK.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;51329169]If you want to see this in action watch a few videos by some really right channel and look at your recommended. I looked up some shot by Gavin McInnes and now get recommended videos on the effects of male priveledge on women[/QUOTE]
Really? It's the opposite for me. Whenever someone links like a Sargon of Akkad or milo yiannopoulus video I feel pretty apprehensive to even click the damn thing in the name of ~~intellectual honesty~~ because my recommendations will be full of that shit for a couple of weeks just for watching one or two.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51329191]PragerU is up, but Crowder is still restricted.
Maybe it is because he says "Muslims hate me!" in the description. See:
Youtube's inappropriate is stricter than FCC's.
[editline]8th November 2016[/editline]
I always get Sargon of Akkad on my right panel. I have to flag "not interested" all the time. Also when PragerU puts out a new video, it is recommended everywhere, on every video.[/QUOTE]
That is true, and crowder has also said and done stuff that many would find pretty concerning, that plus the inflammatory descriptions and titles he enjoys does mean that perhaps people reported him and youtube did that. Or hell, it might have even been automated too, like the rest of the goddamn site's moderation.
Really the problem here then would be Youtube's lack of transparency. When they restrict something they should bloody let them know why they did it.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;51329169]If you want to see this in action watch a few videos by some really right channel and look at your recommended. I looked up some shot by Gavin McInnes and now get recommended videos on the effects of male priveledge on women[/QUOTE]
Yeah no that in particular isn't "hey you're watching right wing videos here have some left wing videos!!!" its "hey you're watching political videos here have some political videos"
I believe Christina Hoff Sommers Factual Feminist videos got hit by this as well.
Strangely I've also heard about videos being restricted and demonetised because they have acne in the description. I can only imagine what's going on at youtube HQ.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51329534]Really? It's the opposite for me. Whenever someone links like a Sargon of Akkad or milo yiannopoulus video I feel pretty apprehensive to even click the damn thing in the name of ~~intellectual honesty~~ because my recommendations will be full of that shit for a couple of weeks just for watching one or two.
[/QUOTE]
See the problem is by doing that you are creating an imbalance. The argument isn't that it's impossible to get their videos in your playing, it's that there's a disproportionate bias towards left leaning videos in YouTubes algorithm. To truly test this you have to find two content creators of equal production value and content output. Sargon etc. circumvent this issue by the sheer amount of content they output, meaning that wathing one of their videos will easily get them in your recommended as all their content is linked by YouTube's algorithm. They create their own content "network" that YouTube recommended loves. This whole mechanic was accentuated in recent years because of channels like FreddieW becoming huge cash cows for YouTube "celebrity status".
The issue isnt that the channels aren't being blocked, but for that whatever reason it is more difficult to find this right wing political content from MULTIPLE venues for whatever result of the algorithm. This is only being amplified by exploiting the flagging system to label this content as innapropriate, which minimizes it's chance of being recommended for users not logged in to an adult account.
[editline]8th November 2016[/editline]
This isn't some distinct anti conservative bias, but rather an exploit of YouTube's content ranking system to cut out content that some would not agree with
[editline]8th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=elowin;51329618]Yeah no that in particular isn't "hey you're watching right wing videos here have some left wing videos!!!" its "hey you're watching political videos here have some political videos"[/QUOTE]
But if I watched videos from the other side of the spectrum would Gavin come up in my recommended?
[editline]8th November 2016[/editline]
TL;DR in the same way that getting a copyright strike for content you made is fucking over creators, getting false flags for hate speech is fucking over these channels
[QUOTE=butre;51327447]youtube has a young demographic, and young people tend to vote democrat if at all. youtube's algorithms show more popular channels first, and seeing as even conservatives don't like listening to other conservatives (the really vocal ones tend to be pretty extreme, and that goes for both sides though it seems liberals are more keen to listen to extreme viewpoints) it stands to reason that unpopular conservative videos wouldn't show up all that often.[/QUOTE]
If you watch the video he states that their channel has been restricted for younger viewers to even watch despite following FCC guidelines, they aren't being sorted out like you say they are, despite the fact that The Young Turks (who curse all the time) aren't restricted.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;51330820]If you watch the video he states that their channel has been restricted for younger viewers to even watch despite following FCC guidelines, they aren't being sorted out like you say they are, despite the fact that The Young Turks (who curse all the time) aren't restricted.[/QUOTE]
There are hundreds of channels more vulgar than both that are unrestricted. Whether or not they follow FCC guidelines is also irrelevant as YouTube as their own oversight. That being said, i personally don't think his channel should be restricted. He is more often than not incorrect, but his show is rarely anything worse than PG13.
[editline]8th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;51329677]
But if I watched videos from the other side of the spectrum would Gavin come up in my recommended?
[/QUOTE]
The point is that youtube analytics isn't beholden to some subjective spectrum at all.
The problem is that YouTube pretends to be unbiased. They're liars.
I've been getting notifications on my phone promoting pro-hillary videos, even though I'm against her.
[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;51331615]I've been getting notifications on my phone promoting pro-hillary videos, even though I'm against her.[/QUOTE]
The only time I get notifications is when I'm actually subscribed to a channel.
[editline]8th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51331364]The problem is that YouTube pretends to be unbiased. They're liars.[/QUOTE]
I mean, Youtube is a subsidiary of Google which is blatantly pro-Democrat. The point at hand though is if this bias is leading to unfair treatment on Youtube and I'm not seeing actual proof of this.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51331579]Nice claim :) Can you support that? Where they claim to be "unbiased", spcially in politics, and how they specifically targeted conservatives?[/QUOTE]
They don't make public political statements...
Google makes political statements all the time what are you talking about
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
