YouTube Creators Discover Content Ratings, Including P-score

[Taf the Ghost]

17 minutes ago, Harry Voyager said:

That's probably what's going to harm YouTube most in the long run. I'm continually finding my "Recommendations" feed filled up with junk I just don't want to watch, so I end up scrolling around mindlessly for a while and not watching anything at all.

 

Where as, if they hadn't been flooding my feed with their latest politics du juer, I would have seen that thing the Fermilab had uploaded on their latest findings and probably spent the next hour deep diving in neutrinos or something weird like that again. 

I keep one specific account that I never touch politics and only the lightest amount of random news. I do that because, firstly, I just want certain videos there, but, secondly, it tells me exactly what YT is pushing.  The Algo is simply an expression of YT's intentions, and it's pretty obvious that "user-generated content" or "suggesting videos from creators you picked" aren't high on the list.

[spartaman64]

16 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Ye...no. Not one of them would've called Obama's mouth a cock holster. The closest I've seen was when... I think Stephen Colbert was interviewing Hillary during her "Pass the bill to find out what's in it" phase and Colbert kept asking if he was stupid and why she wouldn't tell anyone what's in it, but that was so blatantly fucking stupid and shady there's no way to not criticize it.

And I didn't say they were news networks, just that they were horrendously biased. Typically outside of the talk shows Fox tends to... or at least they did, tend to provide more accurate information without misleading BS and jumping to conclusions, like when that Colorado movie shooting happened and... I forget which news channel it was, but they immediately looked up a list of Tea Party members and claimed that a right wing Tea Party member was confirmed to be the shooter, which was a total crock of shit. They guy just had the same name. There's also lots of evidence to show that people that exclusively watch CNN etc. are misinformed or know frankly nothing of import.

But FOX could've changed. It could be total dogshit now, I haven't really watched news in a few years. I do hear people complaining that some of the hosts have turned pretty left, and Greta Von Stroke is a scientologist, so by default she's a terrible human being.

You must be watching fox news from another universe. if a news station seems to always agree with you then its probably not unbiased

[JZStudios]

15 hours ago, dizmo said:

Stocks fluxuate all the time. It only matters if it's sustained. 

The point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your head.

YT is owned by Google. Google is a publicly traded company. Google and YT are therefore not private businesses.

[dalekphalm]

17 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

You must be watching fox news from another universe 

I would also like to point out that Obama never did anything to warrant being called a cock holster. Whereas Trump can't keep Putin's dick out of his mouth - I mean he practically just handed Russia Northern Syria on a golden platter, and that only happened a few weeks ago.

 

Obama was harder to make fun of, from a comedian perspective, because he was cool, likeable, charismatic, and didn't do really dumb shit constantly. Trump is easy to make fun of (whether or not you believe he's Good for America) because of his personality and quirks.

 

Even if you consider him a "good president", it's clear as day that he is easy cannon fodder for comedians.

[JZStudios]

15 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

You must be watching fox news from another universe. if a news station seems to always agree with you then its probably not unbiased

News is news, as is accurate reporting. People always seem to skip the part where I say "Aside from the talk shows."

From what I remember FOX wasn't so eager to push out news that wasn't true and actually waited until they had confirmation. And there's plenty of instances globally of news stations just taking shit straight from random people and passing it as news. They're all pretty bullshit, but again from what I remember FOX was more accurate with what they reported.

 

[dalekphalm]

14 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

YT is owned by Google. Google is a publicly traded company. Google and YT are therefore not private businesses.

What? You're either misunderstanding, or intentionally confusing what they meant.

 

Google (or rather, Alphabet Corp) is a publicly traded company, yes. But a publicly traded company is still a private entity. It's not owned by the "general public" (aka, a crown corporation, or owned by the government or tax payers).

 

It's owned by Shareholders, which happen to be tax payers (some of them, anyway - since anyone, including me, a Non-American - can buy Alphabet stock).

 

And as a non-government run business (whether privately owned or publicly traded), they can indeed do whatever they want in many instances, in so far as the law permits.

 

When @dizmo said they can do what they want - that means within the confines of the law, and of course, at the behest of the stock holders (who want to make money). The only people who have the full right to complain are stockholders.

[dizmo]

18 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

The point.

 

Your head.

YT is owned by Google. Google is a publicly traded company. Google and YT are therefore not private businesses.

@dalekphalm basically nailed it. Thankfully. I didn't have the will to type that out right now Or at least in such detail. I'd have likely just said publicly traded =/= public entity.

Thank you sir.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, dizmo said:

@dalekphalm basically nailed it. Thankfully. I didn't have the will to type that out right now Or at least in such detail. I'd have likely just said publicly traded =/= public entity.

Thank you sir.

Agreed - and you're welcome.

 

When people say Public Entity, they mean something very specific. They mean a company owned by the government (and therefore, by extension, the tax payers). An example of this is the LCBO here in Ontario (it's the state run Liquor Company - though it's an excellent example of one, since it's self sufficient and profitable, earning tax payers money and not costing them anything).

 

A Public Entity means that every citizen is a shareholder, and that means they should be concerned with the inner workings of the company, including decision making, etc.

 

A publicly traded company is the property of it's shareholders. I don't own any GOOG stock, so I don't have the same level of entitlement as if it were a crown corporation (That's a Canadian term - I assume other countries with a Monarchy use the term as well - I fully understand that the US likely uses a different term for a government owned company).

[dizmo]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Agreed - and you're welcome.

 

When people say Public Entity, they mean something very specific. They mean a company owned by the government (and therefore, by extension, the tax payers). An example of this is the LCBO here in Ontario (it's the state run Liquor Company - though it's an excellent example of one, since it's self sufficient and profitable, earning tax payers money and not costing them anything).

 

A Public Entity means that every citizen is a shareholder, and that means they should be concerned with the inner workings of the company, including decision making, etc.

 

A publicly traded company is the property of it's shareholders. I don't own any GOOG stock, so I don't have the same level of entitlement as if it were a crown corporation (That's a Canadian term - I assume other countries with a Monarchy use the term as well - I fully understand that the US likely uses a different term for a government owned company).

And, importantly, they have to conform with freedom of speech. Something that's so often taken as something that private companies have to abide by as well; they don't.

[Harry Voyager]

26 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I would also like to point out that Obama never did anything to warrant being called a cock holster. Whereas Trump can't keep Putin's dick out of his mouth - I mean he practically just handed Russia Northern Syria on a golden platter, and that only happened a few weeks ago.

 

Obama was harder to make fun of, from a comedian perspective, because he was cool, likeable, charismatic, and didn't do really dumb shit constantly. Trump is easy to make fun of (whether or not you believe he's Good for America) because of his personality and quirks.

 

Even if you consider him a "good president", it's clear as day that he is easy cannon fodder for comedians.

Wait, you mean like shipping pallets of cash to a group of folks so utterly homophobic they are the reason why "bundle of wood" is an anti-gay slur wasn't dumb <beep>? Good to know...

 

Though to be fair, his worst plain error was publicly linking the Bin Ladin raid to US associated doctors. That one mistake severely set back our efforts to eradicate Polio in Packistan and Afghanistan. 

 

They got away with stuff like that because the newsies loved them. Seriously look up "find someone who looks at you the way the media looks at Hillary" Just don't look for it on Google. 

 

Things like that are what eventually drove me away from their search engine. I was looking for the joke about "rules for dating my daughter" joke, and all Google could find were articles about toxic masculinity. The joke itself? Not so much. I eventually ended up needing to use Duckduckgo to find the original joke. If it is the least bit controversial, these days Google just seems to report their side. Want to find then other half of the argument? No can do brutha, only stuff arguing and trying to refute the other side. 

[Kisai]

18 hours ago, Ehmc130 said:

Yeah and FOX news (worthless, bias, politically driven crap) is 7th on the list. It shows you what the rest of the list is worth. (Not a crack at LTT)

 

It's not politically motivated. Rather it appears to be engagement motivated, with no surprise going to the late night shows because they are COMEDY. Now ask why CBC (Canada 8) and BBC (UK 11) government news channels are there right beside it? Where's CNN(13), CBS(at 44) and NBC (MSNBC at 17) news?

 

"news" sites tend to be family/PG level content, and each video is individually rated, so that means the worst videos likely have bad scores, which might explain Fox doing slightly better since they're closer to entertainment than news.

 

There is however a lot of, what I could describe as "trash" content near the top, and that makes me think the rating is dishonest.

[dalekphalm]

24 minutes ago, dizmo said:

And, importantly, they have to conform with freedom of speech. Something that's so often taken as something that private companies have to abide by as well; they don't.

Agreed - privately owned and publicly traded companies both do not have to abide by Freedom of Speech - only the government (and by extension, government owned Private Entities) do.

 

Now, whether you think they should have to abide by Freedom of Speech is an entirely different conversation - but I do find it surprising that those who often advocate that, fail to realise that by forcing a private company to have freedom of speech, you're actually curtailing their freedom of speech.

[Brooksie359]

4 hours ago, JZStudios said:

News is news, as is accurate reporting. People always seem to skip the part where I say "Aside from the talk shows."

From what I remember FOX wasn't so eager to push out news that wasn't true and actually waited until they had confirmation. And there's plenty of instances globally of news stations just taking shit straight from random people and passing it as news. They're all pretty bullshit, but again from what I remember FOX was more accurate with what they reported.

 

I will be honest unbiased news just doesn't exist. You can be accurate with the new you report while also being biased based on what you choose to cover or not cover. Tbh I can't stand news in general because I have yet to find any new outlet that didn't sway to one side or the other or have some sort of agenda.

[Rune]

10th. not bad

[justpoet]

13 hours ago, huilun02 said:

???

Just block YouTube ads, disable video recommendations and autoplay

 

On Android, just search "YouTube Vanced"

 

Why even care what channels they try to advocate? Just watch what you are looking to watch, and all the ads and the narrative they try to push can fuck right off.

 

What's worse is when the video itself is literally an advert. This is why LTT is so high up on the list.

"Enhancer for YouTube" is the FireFox plugin that allows full customization of the player, advert and auto play blocking, etc.  Using YT without it is painful.

[justpoet]

Some of the news "stations" still actually do a fairly decent job on reporting the news…though only some.

They ***ALL*** spin the crap out of it to try and make it what one side or the other wants to hear though.

 

Fox actually started the sensationalist news thing ages ago…but seem to try and actually get facts before reporting on something, even now…at least before asking an expert how that makes it bad for the Dems.

 

I miss the OLD ABC…back when folks like Peter Jennings were there and just calmly reporting on everything with actual investigatory journalism and professional coverage of most angles, then letting you decide what you thought of it.  You know, back when the majority of people actually thought for themselves semi logically, rather than just thinking what they're told to think.

[SenKa]

On 10/31/2019 at 9:16 PM, Ehmc130 said:

Yeah and FOX news (worthless, bias, politically driven crap) is 7th on the list. It shows you what the rest of the list is worth. (Not a crack at LTT)

As if you didn't just describe every live broadcast news station.

 

I actually did a project on this in college and found most live broadcast publications to be equally shit overall, though shit in different ways. Fox's flaw wasn't bias or political motivation, rather a simple lack of actually reporting the full story.

 

The story I used to compare them all was the cake shop vs gay couple story, and found that fox just kind of started in the middle. Mind you they reported from there well, adequately proposed both sides of the story and left the reader to draw a conclusion on it. They just started in a really awkward spot which could have very easily lead the viewers to a specific conclusion as not the full history of the subject was mentioned or explained.

[mr moose]

You mean to tell me that youtube has a method for appraising it's liabilities and revenue potential?  What did people think they were doing? 

[Euchre]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You mean to tell me that youtube has a method for appraising it's liabilities and revenue potential?  What did people think they were doing? 

I think the big issue people have is that this hasn't been transparent, and that they are not just actively buoying up certain channels, the process also actively suppresses others. I've always wondered why Kimmel was being shoved in my face, and now I know. I basically never watch late night talk shows, nor clips from them. I can watch tech channels like LTT, and yet it is rare if ever YouTube suggests many truly similar interest channels, like Gamer's Nexus. It took a lot for YouTube to suggest a lot of the retro gaming and tech channels that I've found, even after I had to find them organically.

 

Most ironically to me is that YouTube originally represented a great opportunity for everything from broad to niche appeal to have truly equal access to a facility of distribution. Now, they're pushing the most shallow stuff that probably doesn't need help, while actively suppressing the offbeat or unique stuff. Turns out advertisers are the real customer, and the viewers are the product.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Euchre said:

I think the big issue people have is that this hasn't been transparent, and that they are not just actively buoying up certain channels, the process also actively suppresses others.

It's kinda scary when people have a problem with a business running as per normal business.  They are simply promoting popular content because popular content earns more dollars, they are promoting safer content because it raises less legal issues.  Business 102.   Don't hamstring your revenue stream promoting content that no one wants to watch.

 

Quote

I've always wondered why Kimmel was being shoved in my face, and now I know. I basically never watch late night talk shows, nor clips from them. I can watch tech channels like LTT, and yet it is rare if ever YouTube suggests many truly similar interest channels, like Gamer's Nexus. It took a lot for YouTube to suggest a lot of the retro gaming and tech channels that I've found, even after I had to find them organically.

 

You'll always get recommendations for the larger and more popular channels over anything else.   that is why you'll almost never see a recommendation for small channels on the home page. yet pewdiepie and kimmel et al will nearly always show up regardless if you like them or their content or not.  I am surprised people didn't know they were doing that.  

 

Quote

Most ironically to me is that YouTube originally represented a great opportunity for everything from broad to niche appeal to have truly equal access to a facility of distribution.

It is equal in that you aren't prevented from viewing channels, you just need to find them with either specific search criteria or from other sources.  It is not in youtube's interest to promote unpopular content as that reduces advertising revenue and youtube have never been responsible for promoting small time or niche content.

Quote

Now, they're pushing the most shallow stuff that probably doesn't need help, while actively suppressing the offbeat or unique stuff. Turns out advertisers are the real customer, and the viewers are the product.

They are pushing what is popular and earns them money, shallow is subjective and if the majority of people don't like it, then they don't like it. Not promoting unpopular stuff is not the same as suppressing.

[Bombastinator]

On 10/31/2019 at 7:14 PM, Retro_R said:

Meh, I highly doubt it. Advertisers don't give a single fuck frick about creators, they only care about money. Maybe some small advertisers but probably nothing big

I sort of agree, but it may be over general.  Corporations by definition don’t care about anything but money.  It actually became a legal requirement.  They may lose customers though, depending on their product which goes back to money.  It might apply to some advertisers but not others and it would depend on how much the customers in question both know and act.

in general though an ethical corporation is usually a contradiction in terms.

[Unixsystem]

On 10/31/2019 at 10:10 PM, dizmo said:

I also don't understand why you would care, or have some sort of opinion about it. YouTube is a private platform. Yes, anyone can join it, but it's not a publicly owned entity. It is owned by a corporation, and they will do with it as they please. No one has a right to really complain about it; don't like what they're doing, get off the platform.

I find it pretty funny that you simultaneously say "they are a private company, they have a right to do what they want" followed immediately by "no one has a right to complain."

 

I'll never understand this mentality of defending a company's actions just because it's currently legal. There are all sorts of despicable, immoral things that I could go around legally doing, it doesn't mean it's good for me to do nor does it mean that I'm immune from criticism if I choose to. YouTube is a product, and while advertisers may be their primary customer they only have any pull because of creators that make content and viewers who watch it. If either of those two groups are incensed with their business practices, not only are they able to complain but it may in fact be in their best interest to complain. 

 

And that's not even getting into the fact that YouTube is an effective monopoly that only exists because it's bankrolled by Google. If the biggest and most popular video platform consistently operates at a loss, how are we supposed to find alternatives with better policies?

 

I'm not saying that there's a clear cut answer or that complaining will necessarily fix things, but it's a whole hell of a lot better than just bending over and letting YouTube have its way with a large chunk of the entertainment industry and play dice with thousands of people's personal income. 

[Kisai]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's kinda scary when people have a problem with a business running as per normal business.  They are simply promoting popular content because popular content earns more dollars, they are promoting safer content because it raises less legal issues.  Business 102.   Don't hamstring your revenue stream promoting content that no one wants to watch.

 

 

You'll always get recommendations for the larger and more popular channels over anything else.   that is why you'll almost never see a recommendation for small channels on the home page. yet pewdiepie and kimmel et al will nearly always show up regardless if you like them or their content or not.  I am surprised people didn't know they were doing that.  

 

You know what would improve Youtube's revenue? a "Never show this channel to me again" button. PewDiePie would go straight into the trash bin, along with all the other crappy minecraft/fortnite/shooty-game channels that I don't care about.

 

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

You know what would improve Youtube's revenue? a "Never show this channel to me again" button. PewDiePie would go straight into the trash bin, along with all the other crappy minecraft/fortnite/shooty-game channels that I don't care about.

 

You should request that feature then, by Tweeting at YouTube's official handle, or posting on their official Facebook Group.

[suicidalfranco]

Let's push ltt to the top