youtube will silently start removing your access to videos and profiles. all i can still do is comment. i think. ISRAEL DID 9/11 and the jews LIE about the holoco$t !
This is the democratic system. We were supposed to be a democratic republic, but now it is strictly a democracy. bad bad...99% of the masses are brainwashed to believe in democracy...It's a setup for the brainwashed to take humanity and shove it into the toilet. Wake up sleepers
But there is also another Dimension to this, which you didn't touch on yet.
This is the Discussion White Space itself, which is constantly filled up with Insults and Trash and Mock Accounts of Saudi sponsored Stalker Gangs
What this does to us.... is... that it interrupts our public communication lines and this is perhaps a problem more severe than the Voting, Flagging an Rating Aspects of the API
Whould would you think, would be the best Way to eradicate these Gangs?
I have experienced what you are talking about first hand. I have a nasa ufo video that counted 200.000 + views in a few months and was growing steadily but suddenly it stopped showing up at the top of the search engine and it's still practically at the same number after almost two years later...It's just a shame.
Great video. You explained everything really well.
It's really disappointing that Youtube has decided against using content filters. If the impact of this regulation grows to strongly affect the abilities of its users to find videos, Youtube may loose it's place as a resource for videos on important issues. This is disappointing since the youtube community is already so large.
There's hundreds of different video sites around the net, most of which have NO censorship. If you check out HavenVideo, there a huge database of pretty much every video site on the net.
Please add this video as a video response! I set my video so that responses are added to it automatically.
I think that you are right to criticize my attitude about censorship. However I guess I didn't add some things to the video that were probably necessary. First of all, I don't actually know what YouTube in fact intends to do to demote videos, but I can narrow down the possibilities to what would be reasonable. Obviously YouTube isn't going to hire people to watch videos and see if they...
contain profanity. I suppose it wouldn't take much to clean out the "Most Viewed", "Most Favorited", etc. lists, but that is a extremely small fraction of the content uploaded to YouTube. So, that's obviously not a practical option.
But could they program an AI to scan videos for profanity and other content that is against the policies? Possible, but I doubt YouTube would pay for technology like that JUST for a policy that likely isn't going to profit them a lot anyways.
Besides, what would be the point in hiring people or inventing machines to watch videos when you have a whole population of users who do it for free? I know for a fact that search engines sort the videos by the number of clicks a search result gets (NOT the number of total views, but just views that result from that search), so it makes the most practical sense from a design perspective to extend that ability.
Second of all, assuming all this is true, what abilities would a user have? Consider the flagging options listed in the "Select a Reason" drop-down box. There is no option to flag something because it is Gay, Islamic, or Atheistic, but there are options like flagging a video because it contains violence. They will probably include a flagging option for foul language, keeping in mind that it's likely the users that will be in control of demoting videos.
All this considered, you are right in that the flagging ability is going to be abused. Therefore, what is most likely going to happen is flagging will YouTube's attention to that video, and at that point they can "approve of" those flags; only THEN will the flags have an effect.
Yes probably, but that would depend on how much flagging is going on all over the place. But yes, YOUTUBE can be organized. But nothing can replace putting the control in the hands of the searcher, not the flager.
Viewer monitoring and flagging is an issue for me because I think prejudiced and uncritical persons would abuse it. A group of people could create multiple accounts just to heavily flag a video they disagree with. suppression of certain viewpoints could occur. If people must opt to remove flags from their search then an intelligent open minded person can see videos rather than being denied the video by a bunch of prejudiced ignoramuses.
I am sure that if it ever came to people making sock-puppet accounts to flag videos, they'd implement something which only gave effective flagging abilities (that is, ones that demote) to users who have been active for a certain amount of time. (Perhaps by the number of videos they watched.)
Actually, go to Newgrounds (. com), they have a very interesting experience-based rating/flagging system that gives users in good standing advantage over those who are more likely to abuse the system.
"There is no option to flag something because it is Gay, Islamic, or Atheistic"
There is: Hateful or abusive content
"I am sure that if it ever came to people making sock-puppet accounts..."
There are already powerful votebots that can cause a vieo to drop from 5 stars to 3 stars even with thousands of positive votes. Don't trust too much in youtubes counter-abusive capabilities.
I see your point, How do you make it democratic in the search engine when the information of the content of the video is not like a text file that can be easily scanned? The technology to scan a video probably is non existent or expensive. But my point is that after a video is flagged for a large number of available reasons, people could then choose to decide which flags they want to include and exclude.
That is quite true, but still a far cry from some kind of anti-free speech conspiracy, targeting atheists, that will bring YouTube to its demise. It will pretty much be how it always was, but giving moderators (and people who flag) the option to have more intermediate effects between leaving the video, removing it, or requiring an age verification.
That's interesting, I have rarely seen obscene videos with nudity or anythign requiring a legal age limit. Most of the videos I have seen with a maturity flag are videos that conservatives find "mature." Most would not get an R rating in a movie. Controversial does not mean obscene or "mature."
Most flaggings are done because of differences of opinions. Two gay men kissing is hardly something that needs flagged in order to protect anyone. It can be seen on prime time tv. Yet most gay videos of kissing are flagged. It is flagged because of the offense of the flagger and nothing more. This system amounts to democratic censorship. Free speech being suppressed by the many is as bad as free speech being suppressed by the few or the one.
With a sufficiently sophisticated search engine with multiple variables, people could choose what THEY want to come up on the top of their search. They can remove profanity, religious criticism, gay videos, etc. This is democratic. Why make a decision of how to rank videos that is the same for everyone? If you want people to see your vids you have to appeal to them, like everything else in life. But the decision would be in the searcher not some arbitrary decision by youtube.
NOW: Taking in mind what you've said about giving people the OPTION to have video flagging affect their searches - I totally agree. But the options would be limited to, at most, the same options you have to flag a video (under the "Select a Reason" drop-down box.)
This has been flagged as spam show
youtube will silently start removing your access to videos and profiles. all i can still do is comment. i think. ISRAEL DID 9/11 and the jews LIE about the holoco$t !
want proof ? sEarch: 9/11 - Missing Links
unless you're too scared of the patriot act.
oveid 6 months ago
This is the democratic system. We were supposed to be a democratic republic, but now it is strictly a democracy. bad bad...99% of the masses are brainwashed to believe in democracy...It's a setup for the brainwashed to take humanity and shove it into the toilet. Wake up sleepers
godwithme777 10 months ago
how do you flag a video?
roaringwaterbay 1 year ago
@roaringwaterbay noob
TehBryananater 1 year ago
excellent argument - thank you
sotlan 1 year ago
I'd love to flag this as GREAT ! !
really, keep it on!
sidremus 1 year ago
Exactly. Well said.
Neurolanis 2 years ago
most people will be malicious, I think just in spite of the fact...what ever that may be.
Tiahur76 2 years ago
Makes sense but I doubt youtube give a shit unfortunately.
Jtherva 2 years ago
Interesting,Video thanks.
But there is also another Dimension to this, which you didn't touch on yet.
This is the Discussion White Space itself, which is constantly filled up with Insults and Trash and Mock Accounts of Saudi sponsored Stalker Gangs
What this does to us.... is... that it interrupts our public communication lines and this is perhaps a problem more severe than the Voting, Flagging an Rating Aspects of the API
Whould would you think, would be the best Way to eradicate these Gangs?
aishasgoat 2 years ago
Sounds like they need a flag system. Profane, dumb, wrong, liar, and oh how about not enough boobs in this video.
Curtishasone2 2 years ago
Where have you been Skeptic? I miss your
words of wisdom!! You must be busy in
your life but I just wanted to tell you that the
things you have to say are so interesting to
me and that I do look forward to your videos.
I don't mean to push you but I do miss you!
paulusmagirl 2 years ago
I have experienced what you are talking about first hand. I have a nasa ufo video that counted 200.000 + views in a few months and was growing steadily but suddenly it stopped showing up at the top of the search engine and it's still practically at the same number after almost two years later...It's just a shame.
SuperFinGuy 3 years ago
You made great points. Hope YouTube listens to it.
SuperFinGuy 3 years ago
Great video. You explained everything really well.
It's really disappointing that Youtube has decided against using content filters. If the impact of this regulation grows to strongly affect the abilities of its users to find videos, Youtube may loose it's place as a resource for videos on important issues. This is disappointing since the youtube community is already so large.
MentalEclipse 3 years ago
If they disappoint enough people, a rival service will occur. Maybe one already has and I am unaware of it. A monopoly on video is not a good thing.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
There's hundreds of different video sites around the net, most of which have NO censorship. If you check out HavenVideo, there a huge database of pretty much every video site on the net.
timlearybedead 3 years ago
Thanks for posting it! :D
WhiteDragon103 3 years ago
Please add this video as a video response! I set my video so that responses are added to it automatically.
I think that you are right to criticize my attitude about censorship. However I guess I didn't add some things to the video that were probably necessary. First of all, I don't actually know what YouTube in fact intends to do to demote videos, but I can narrow down the possibilities to what would be reasonable. Obviously YouTube isn't going to hire people to watch videos and see if they...
WhiteDragon103 3 years ago
contain profanity. I suppose it wouldn't take much to clean out the "Most Viewed", "Most Favorited", etc. lists, but that is a extremely small fraction of the content uploaded to YouTube. So, that's obviously not a practical option.
But could they program an AI to scan videos for profanity and other content that is against the policies? Possible, but I doubt YouTube would pay for technology like that JUST for a policy that likely isn't going to profit them a lot anyways.
WhiteDragon103 3 years ago
Besides, what would be the point in hiring people or inventing machines to watch videos when you have a whole population of users who do it for free? I know for a fact that search engines sort the videos by the number of clicks a search result gets (NOT the number of total views, but just views that result from that search), so it makes the most practical sense from a design perspective to extend that ability.
WhiteDragon103 3 years ago
Second of all, assuming all this is true, what abilities would a user have? Consider the flagging options listed in the "Select a Reason" drop-down box. There is no option to flag something because it is Gay, Islamic, or Atheistic, but there are options like flagging a video because it contains violence. They will probably include a flagging option for foul language, keeping in mind that it's likely the users that will be in control of demoting videos.
WhiteDragon103 3 years ago
All this considered, you are right in that the flagging ability is going to be abused. Therefore, what is most likely going to happen is flagging will YouTube's attention to that video, and at that point they can "approve of" those flags; only THEN will the flags have an effect.
WhiteDragon103 3 years ago
flagging will bring YouTube's attention to that video*
WhiteDragon103 3 years ago
Yes probably, but that would depend on how much flagging is going on all over the place. But yes, YOUTUBE can be organized. But nothing can replace putting the control in the hands of the searcher, not the flager.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
Viewer monitoring and flagging is an issue for me because I think prejudiced and uncritical persons would abuse it. A group of people could create multiple accounts just to heavily flag a video they disagree with. suppression of certain viewpoints could occur. If people must opt to remove flags from their search then an intelligent open minded person can see videos rather than being denied the video by a bunch of prejudiced ignoramuses.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
I am sure that if it ever came to people making sock-puppet accounts to flag videos, they'd implement something which only gave effective flagging abilities (that is, ones that demote) to users who have been active for a certain amount of time. (Perhaps by the number of videos they watched.)
WhiteDragon103 3 years ago
Actually, go to Newgrounds (. com), they have a very interesting experience-based rating/flagging system that gives users in good standing advantage over those who are more likely to abuse the system.
WhiteDragon103 3 years ago
Probably, but I am sure you can imagine a way around that as well.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
"There is no option to flag something because it is Gay, Islamic, or Atheistic"
There is: Hateful or abusive content
"I am sure that if it ever came to people making sock-puppet accounts..."
There are already powerful votebots that can cause a vieo to drop from 5 stars to 3 stars even with thousands of positive votes. Don't trust too much in youtubes counter-abusive capabilities.
Hedning1390 3 years ago
I see your point, How do you make it democratic in the search engine when the information of the content of the video is not like a text file that can be easily scanned? The technology to scan a video probably is non existent or expensive. But my point is that after a video is flagged for a large number of available reasons, people could then choose to decide which flags they want to include and exclude.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
That is quite true, but still a far cry from some kind of anti-free speech conspiracy, targeting atheists, that will bring YouTube to its demise. It will pretty much be how it always was, but giving moderators (and people who flag) the option to have more intermediate effects between leaving the video, removing it, or requiring an age verification.
WhiteDragon103 3 years ago
That's interesting, I have rarely seen obscene videos with nudity or anythign requiring a legal age limit. Most of the videos I have seen with a maturity flag are videos that conservatives find "mature." Most would not get an R rating in a movie. Controversial does not mean obscene or "mature."
SkepticSage 3 years ago
Most flaggings are done because of differences of opinions. Two gay men kissing is hardly something that needs flagged in order to protect anyone. It can be seen on prime time tv. Yet most gay videos of kissing are flagged. It is flagged because of the offense of the flagger and nothing more. This system amounts to democratic censorship. Free speech being suppressed by the many is as bad as free speech being suppressed by the few or the one.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
With a sufficiently sophisticated search engine with multiple variables, people could choose what THEY want to come up on the top of their search. They can remove profanity, religious criticism, gay videos, etc. This is democratic. Why make a decision of how to rank videos that is the same for everyone? If you want people to see your vids you have to appeal to them, like everything else in life. But the decision would be in the searcher not some arbitrary decision by youtube.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
NOW: Taking in mind what you've said about giving people the OPTION to have video flagging affect their searches - I totally agree. But the options would be limited to, at most, the same options you have to flag a video (under the "Select a Reason" drop-down box.)
WhiteDragon103 3 years ago
this has been already demostrated the fact the flag system is wrong , the JDF Zionist group have been doing it a lot ,
jmm1233 3 years ago
Exactly the point I am making to WHiteDragon above. A legitimate but unpopular viewpoint could be totally suppressed by a campaign of bigots.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
Political Correctness was started by communists...
Briena1982 3 years ago
Very good points and I agree with what you are saying.
SouthernRaisedAtheis 3 years ago
Can you imagine searching for atheism and finding the Numa Numa video?
We'll I agree with everyone, like you, who are saying how unfair this is in terms of democracy and free speech. I'm with ya!
But why would Youtube care?
What can really be done?
JEFFtheATHEIST 3 years ago
I think that an alternative to their policy can be suggested where they can make money and still allow all videos the chance to be seen.
SkepticSage 3 years ago