YouTube adds "Breaking News" section to homepage

[Mihle]

9 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Are there any real news sites left?  I wonder......

Yes, ofc.

[suicidalfranco]

great, another place that has to constantly remind that terror attacks are a result of events like charlottesville  or trump

[matrix07012]

Al Jazeera isn't news. Even Fox and CNN are more reliable.

[Guest]

Breaking news about pets and cattle wont be breaking will they?

[goodtofufriday]

[DoctorWho1975]

Great, another outlet which will have "breaking news" going for days after an event happens.

[MrDynamicMan]

17 hours ago, AresKrieger said:

I don't want to watch CNN Fox or MSNBC lie about current events 90% of the time hence why I block that section

#TwoScoops

[MrDynamicMan]

3 hours ago, matrix07012 said:

Al Jazeera isn't news. Even Fox and CNN are more reliable.

>funded by Qatar gov

What could possibly go wrong

[MrDynamicMan]

7 hours ago, Mihle said:

Not the ones I use. News sites in my language is generally far from as bad as US ones are....
 

but to compare to the sites you probably think of, why would youtube be any less "propaganda"?

I'd say it's because there are many actors to call other people out, functioning like a "free market" of credibility 

[Mihle]

5 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

I'd say it's because there are many actors to call other people out, functioning like a "free market" of credibility 

There are multiple news sites, they can call each other out if they want to without youtube.

[Sauron]

Or one could just use an RSS aggregator with the news channels they want to see.

[manikyath]

with all the downsides of worldwide breaking news on youtube..

 

its still better than this:

 

thats on a clean browser, by the way

[matrix07012]

 

[TacoSenpai]

On 8/20/2017 at 1:06 AM, Taf the Ghost said:

YouTube has finally accepted a while ago their business model failed, but it's nice to see them trying to solve that. Even if it's going to ruin the place.

 

YouTube will be "Like your TV, but on the Internet! And 100million other videos people uploaded, but commercial free". There'll never be enough ad revenue for the way video content works. Maybe in 10-15 years the Technicals will allow for it, but not now.

 

The other side of the coin is that it's just another nail in the coffin for Web 2.0 companies. Almost none of them have ever made any money.

I think what you are getting at here is that if you look back to when Youtube was made it was never meant to be a giagantic platform that people could make a living off of alone.  Yes I know I might get flak for saying this and I know LMG has been able to find some success with it mostly because it gives them a way to promote their content and make money via Amazon affiliates and whatever other sponsers they get. However originally, people just made goofy videos for fun no ads just whatever stupid funny stuff they wanted to do.  By the way lets not forget that false copyright and content ID didn't become an issue until users could monetize their videos. 

 

I honestly do think that once Google bought YT that is when things appeared to go downhill at least to me but hey I'm just some rando on the internet.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, LordTaco42 said:

I think what you are getting at here is that if you look back to when Youtube was made it was never meant to be a giagantic platform that people could make a living off of alone.  Yes I know I might get flak for saying this and I know LMG has been able to find some success with it mostly because it gives them a way to promote their content and make money via Amazon affiliates and whatever other sponsers they get. However originally, people just made goofy videos for fun no ads just whatever stupid funny stuff they wanted to do.  By the way lets not forget that false copyright and content ID didn't become an issue until users could monetize their videos. 

 

I honestly do think that once Google bought YT that is when things appeared to go downhill at least to me but hey I'm just some rando on the internet.

It's a little more complex than just that.

 

Video + Bandwidth is expensive. Really expensive. Possibly the most expensive part of the entire Internet. So the problem is that YouTube started as a Web 2.0 company: Get Users, Get Traffic, Sell Ads (or sell out to Google). That hasn't worked. Google bought YouTube in 2006. We don't know exactly how much money they've lost on YT, but it's probably in the range of 5-10 Billion dollars over the last 11 years. That's a pretty massive failure of a Business Model.

 

Reality is that Video requires a freemium Model. There just will never be enough money in Video Ads to cover it. A lot of the reason being that it degrades the actual service in the process. This isn't news to the higher ups at Google, but because of the Upfront costs of running a video service they've gotten a pass on Anti-competitive practices. (Supporting a secondary business to that amount of cross subsidization is actually an Anti-Trust Violation in the USA and normally gets you smacked around.) So they use YouTube as a way of having massive influence all over the world.

 

But what really kills YouTube is the 100s of hours per minute of video uploaded that no one is going to watch. That costs them money. Lots and Lots of money. They should, at this point, be profitable on monetized videos (as they don't seem to be losing all that much money now), but they pretty much need to run off everyone that isn't in the top 10,000 creators. Watch for them to take steps to make not being perfectly marketable across the Global be very unprofitable on YouTube. Plus they won't trend non-monetizable Videos.

 

It'll no longer be YouTube; it'll be CorporateTube + Cat videos.

[Trik'Stari]

Oh I'm sure the coverage will be fair on this one.

 

It's not like Google could/will abuse their position within the market to show only news coverage that fuels their agenda and helps line their pockets (by covering a certain agenda that helps certain politicians get elected). The only difference that I can see is that Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc, will have to grovel at Google's feet to get something featured.

[Taf the Ghost]

55 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Oh I'm sure the coverage will be fair on this one.

 

It's not like Google could/will abuse their position within the market to show only news coverage that fuels their agenda and helps line their pockets (by covering a certain agenda that helps certain politicians get elected). The only difference that I can see is that Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc, will have to grovel at Google's feet to get something featured.

Considering Google recently fired a center-left Jew for pointing out Population Distribution exists, there is nothing to trust with Google. They've staked out their political position.

[MrDynamicMan]

On 20/08/2017 at 7:14 PM, Mihle said:

There are multiple news sites, they can call each other out if they want to without youtube.

Except it hasn't really been working recently. I mean, as far as I am aware news sites don't write articles on other news sites for say, mislabellijg someone as Alt right. 

[Jito463]

5 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

Except it hasn't really been working recently. I mean, as far as I am aware news sites don't write articles on other news sites for say, mislabellijg someone as Alt right. 

Calling out other news stations?  Why?  They're almost all (save for a handful) operating off the same play book, orchestrated by the DNC.  They don't need to call each other out, because they're all telling the exact same story, just as it was scripted for them.

[Trik'Stari]

8 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Considering Google recently fired a center-left Jew for pointing out Population Distribution exists, there is nothing to trust with Google. They've staked out their political position.

Indeed.

 

It's funny how the ultra left tout themselves are open minded and tolerant, but are then completely intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them or even remotely offends them.

 

And before anyone starts, yes free speech should apply to companies, specifically when that company has a monopoly on the market it occupies. Why? Because you have to have measures that offset power, and a monopoly is the ultimate financial power in this day and age.