Youtube's Search Result Censorship Continues...And It's Driving Me Nuts

[Tourmaline]

I'm quite curious if there is a business opportunity here. Unfortunately, YouTube has used one of the most underhanded tactics that exist, build up a huge audience and then change the rules.

I've been trying to give Youtube the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they just messed up something and so when you search directly for a large channel you don't see their results. It's been like a month and this absurdity is still going on. Actually it's gotten worse. A month ago it only affected the USA. They've now seemingly applied the search result censoring to the entire world.

Easy example is Ben Shapiro. His channel has 843k subscribers and he puts out a 1hr show every day. It used to be that I can just search Shapiro and find his latest shows very quickly. This is what the top 10 results looks like now. Notice none of these are from his channel!


His daily shows regularly get over 100k views, they are not some unwatched unrelated results that you wouldn't expect to show up.

This is what you get from searching something like Democracy Now:


Which is exactly what you'd expect when you search a channel's name. Now notice too, these videos have far less than 100k views as well!

What YouTube is doing is ridiculous.

Then to speak of Tampering with elections? Unfairly attempting to influence election results? Controlling the narrative?

This isn't China. Stop censoring my media. Unfortunately, there isn't really another alternative to YouTube that's widely used. So for now, I'm basically stuck with dealing with their biased practices.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[PizzaOnTheRoof]

 

[Tourmaline]

Oh nice, that just came out.

I hope the mods don't think is a political post in the sense of left vs right.

No, this affects both democrats and republicans, even though it does relate to politics.

This is a pretty huge bipartisan issue. It's clearly affecting legitimate people on both sides of the aisle.

 

[PizzaOnTheRoof]

Oh nice, that just came out.

I hope the mods don't think is a political post in the sense of left vs right.

No, this affects both democrats and republicans, even though it does relate to politics.

This is a pretty huge bipartisan issue. It's clearly affecting legitimate people on both sides of the aisle.

Yep. Live-streamed yesterday.

This is not a left or right issue. These actions are purely ANTI-AMERICAN.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Dan_Cardone]

I mean, youtube is owned by the same company that rigged google search results too....

Not surprised.

 

[Tourmaline]

I mean, youtube is owned by the same company that rigged google search results too....

Not surprised.

Rigged search results related to elections too?

I know about making their products show up higher than others...but I suppose it they're doing this on YouTube then why wouldn't they be doing this on straight Google search too.

 

[PizzaOnTheRoof]

Rigged search results related to elections too?

I know about making their products show up higher than others...but I suppose it they're doing this on YouTube then why wouldn't they be doing this on straight Google search too.

Yep. That's what the video I posted is about.

During one of the Democratic debates, Tulsi Gabbard was the most searched keyword for a few hours.

Coincidentally, Google suspended her Google Ads account during those hours due to "violating TOS". After the wave of search traffic subsided her account was magically reactivated...

She's currently suing Google for unfair treatment and election meddling.

Gabbard and Crowder have both experienced suppressed search results on YouTube and are taking action on it. Rightfully so.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[G-Man]

Somewhere in the the smokey, slime infested underground tunnel that runs between K Street and Silicon Valley, the decision was made to sabotage Tulsi Gabbard. IMHO - this is what will happen to any candidate that can talk about scaling back the war machine and be taken seriously.

Political diatribes aside - there's definitely an opportunity, hence the rise of things like duckduckgo, gab, and bitchute.

The thing is you still have to deliver comparable value. Google's value proposition is so great that it will take a lot more than "we won't censor you" to divert any sizeable number of consumers away form Google.

 

[Tourmaline]

I don't see much value proposition that is unique to Youtube beyond we have a huge audience. But of course, what is more important for advertisers?

Why don't more people use Vimeo or Bitchute for example?

 

[Sadik]

A related detailed research on youtube's practices

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDqBeXJ8Zx8&feature=youtu.be

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[PizzaOnTheRoof]

I don't see much value proposition that is unique to Youtube beyond we have a huge audience. But of course, what is more important for advertisers?

Why don't more people use Vimeo or Bitchute for example?

It’s very difficult to build a successful two-sided marketplace. YouTube is back by one of the largest, most advanced companies in history.

I think it would take a black swan type of even to dethrone Google.

 

[Here]

Googles censorship is old news. So is their tracking nearly every keystroke. But most of us are too lazy to switch to another search engine.

And content creators stick with YouTube because that’s where the traffic is.

 

[Tourmaline]

A related detailed research on youtube's practices

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDqBeXJ8Zx8&feature=youtu.be

Oh wow, thank you for this! I didn't realize how badly it affects the non-political realms.

I was under the impression outside of politics it was generally fair and actually promoted independent YouTubers!

Wowie wowie

It’s very difficult to build a successful two-sided marketplace. YouTube is back by one of the largest, most advanced companies in history.

I think it would take a black swan type of even to dethrone Google.

hmm why is a two sided marketplace so difficult? Can't they both serve a specific need?

I guess there's no Facebook and Other is there...hmm

Googles censorship is old news. So is their tracking nearly every keystroke. But most of us are too lazy to switch to another search engine.

And content creators stick with YouTube because that’s where the traffic is.

This to me is a much more deceptive form of censorship, done through search result manipulation. The fact that it's being done for political gains is what's wholly unacceptable in my view. It undermines America.

No one cares about privacy. Well I do, but for over a year I was on lavabit emailing people on gmail. Pointlessly. lol.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[PizzaOnTheRoof]

hmm why is a two sided marketplace so difficult? Can't they both serve a specific need?

I guess there's no Facebook and Other is there...hmm

If there’s no traffic, then why would a content creator use it?

If there’s no content, why would anyone use it?

It’s a catch 22.

 

[Tourmaline]

I understand that level. But take Vimeo for example. It has content and it has traffic. Just not a lot of either.

Of course I don't know what they offer differently than youtube, so that is likely the entire problem.

 

[MitchM]

If there’s no traffic, then why would a content creator use it?

If there’s no content, why would anyone use it?

It’s a catch 22.

Yep, and YouTube came around when it was just a cool interesting thing to try.

people were originally just recording videos of whatever they wanted and posting it on there. It was completely casual.

Now people come to “create content” with expectations of viewers - knowing that these viewers expect some sort of quality.

It really was a massive snowball effect. It’d probably take giving like 10,000 popular content creators $100,000 or something crazy like that to get your foot in the door.

For someone to actually compete with YouTube they would have to probably make it a platform that is catered to a different kind of media.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Tourmaline]

@MitchM BitChute is effectively serving a different kind of media. But it's mostly fringe in my view.

To compete with YT will require doing what Facebook did to MySpace. It has to innovate past it.

What if there was a site that indexed YouTube videos and let you search it fairly and gave a trending list fairly? Leveraging YouTube's biased treatment of the marketplace into a new product so to say. It still lets YouTube cater to whomever it wants, while giving those that are less interested in the mainstream a place to find content to compete fairly with each other for attention.

 

[MitchM]

@MitchM BitChute is effectively serving a different kind of media. But it's mostly fringe in my view.

To compete with YT will require doing what Facebook did to MySpace. It has to innovate past it.

What if there was a site that indexed YouTube videos and let you search it fairly and gave a trending list fairly? Leveraging YouTube's biased treatment of the marketplace into a new product so to say. It still lets YouTube cater to whomever it wants, while giving those that are less interested in the mainstream a place to find content to compete fairly with each other for attention.

The ad dollars from the videos would go to YouTube, but I guess a site could do that.

You may as well index videos from all around the web at that point.

It’s a real tricky challenge to offer up recommended ways and do ranking the way YouTube does though.

There’s also going to be the weird UI that I can’t see a solution for.

 

[guy93777]

This isn't China. Stop censoring my media. Unfortunately, there isn't really another alternative to YouTube that's widely used. So for now, I'm basically stuck with dealing with their biased practices.

LOL. do you really think that we live in a free society ?

capitalism does not mean " free" . this is what 99 % of people do not understand



everything you do on an electronic device is analyzed by supercomputers ( NSA whatever )

and this society has been ruled by social engineering since its beggining in 1776

since people don't believe me, just check for yourself :












so there is game about society wich explains everything :












.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[StrikingViper69]

LOL. do you really think that we live in a free society ?

capitalism does not mean " free" . this is what 99 % of people do not understand



everything you do on an electronic device is analyzed by supercomputers ( NSA whatever )

and this society has been ruled by social engineering since its beggining in 1776

since people don't believe me, just check for yourself :

View attachment 28280


View attachment 28281



View attachment 28282



so there is game about society wich explains everything :


View attachment 28283




View attachment 28284




.

man you post some random stuff.
We do not live in a free society.

capitalism does mean freedom - it’s impossible to have capitalism without freedom.

one aspect of freedom is doing what you want with your property - which is what google are doing with YouTube. They’re not censoring anyone, they’re exercising their freedom of speech. But because it’s in a direction that people don’t like, the cries of “censorship” go up, which ironically hurts freedom of speech more than they claim google has.

Censoring is when the government comes in to silence people. You, or you company, choosing which viewpoints to promote, is freedom of speech.

 

[Here]

I understand that level. But take Vimeo for example. It has content and it has traffic. Just not a lot of either.

Of course I don't know what they offer differently than youtube, so that is likely the entire problem.

Vimeo is freemium. They want creators to move up to their paid plan. The money comes from creators rather than advertising.
YouTube’s search engine is fantastic (um, when it isn’t rigged). Your chances of getting found are a lot better there than anywhere else.

 

[Here]

this is what 99 % of people do not understand

99% of which people??

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Here]

@MitchM BitChute is effectively serving a different kind of media. But it's mostly fringe in my view.

To compete with YT will require doing what Facebook did to MySpace. It has to innovate past it.

What if there was a site that indexed YouTube videos and let you search it fairly and gave a trending list fairly? Leveraging YouTube's biased treatment of the marketplace into a new product so to say. It still lets YouTube cater to whomever it wants, while giving those that are less interested in the mainstream a place to find content to compete fairly with each other for attention.

Sorry for spamming the thread. I can’t seem to edit posts properly on mobile.
Wired had a great article on why patron started. It involved the founder feeling burnt out over the pennies they were getting from yt, even with loads of views.
The journalist pointed out the irony, because instead of creating an alternative to yt they created a way for artists to earn money even while yt took full advantage of them. So technically patron is actually enabling yt.
Oh and it’s patreon. Not patron.

Jack Conte, Patreon, and the Plight of the Creative Class

The DIY musician's membership platform set out to provide a livelihood for artists on the internet. Is it more than just a band-aid for a broken system?

www.wired.com

 

[Tourmaline]

LOL. do you really think that we live in a free society ?

capitalism does not mean " free" . this is what 99 % of people do not understand

View attachment 28283

I've never thought capitalism means free. It has nothing to do with freedom vs tyranny. America's government however is free. Regardless of social engineering on the micro level, on the macro level it is the freeest country in the world with an excellent democratic system.

What game is that?

 

[Tourmaline]

one aspect of freedom is doing what you want with your property - which is what google are doing with YouTube. They’re not censoring anyone, they’re exercising their freedom of speech. But because it’s in a direction that people don’t like, the cries of “censorship” go up, which ironically hurts freedom of speech more than they claim google has.

Censoring is when the government comes in to silence people. You, or you company, choosing which viewpoints to promote, is freedom of speech.

There's two issues here.

If a company is a platform, then they cannot be exercising freedom of speech.
If a company is a publisher, then they can exercise freedom of speech.

Platforms and publishers are held to different standards of regulation.

Beyond that, if YT had a public list of rules and abided by them, and that list said it would manipulate search results for political bias or out of favoritism, then that would be fine. The second issue is that they do not follow the rules they put out. Hence people will be penalized and not given a reason, or seemingly not be in violation of a rule, or even be declared to not be in violation of a rule yet still continue to be penalized.

Currently YT acts like a biased publication while claiming to be a neutral platform and keeping the protections a neutral platform enjoys.

Vimeo is freemium. They want creators to move up to their paid plan. The money comes from creators rather than advertising.
YouTube’s search engine is fantastic (um, when it isn’t rigged). Your chances of getting found are a lot better there than anywhere else.

Has Vimeo always been freemium? I could swear it wasn't at one point...but goes to show how up to date I am...

Sorry for spamming the thread. I can’t seem to edit posts properly on mobile.
Wired had a great article on why patron started. It involved the founder feeling burnt out over the pennies they were getting from yt, even with loads of views.
The journalist pointed out the irony, because instead of creating an alternative to yt they created a way for artists to earn money even while yt took full advantage of them. So technically patron is actually enabling yt.
Oh and it’s patreon. Not patron.

Jack Conte, Patreon, and the Plight of the Creative Class

The DIY musician's membership platform set out to provide a livelihood for artists on the internet. Is it more than just a band-aid for a broken system?

www.wired.com

I see exactly what you mean with Patreon. Yes, Patreon does indeed enable YT.

Although it seems like Patreon is in a prime place to have its own video hosting?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[StrikingViper69]

There's two issues here.

If a company is a platform, then they cannot be exercising freedom of speech.
If a company is a publisher, then they can exercise freedom of speech.

Platforms and publishers are held to different standards of regulation.

Beyond that, if YT had a public list of rules and abided by them, and that list said it would manipulate search results for political bias or out of favoritism, then that would be fine. The second issue is that they do not follow the rules they put out. Hence people will be penalized and not given a reason, or seemingly not be in violation of a rule, or even be declared to not be in violation of a rule yet still continue to be penalized.

Currently YT acts like a biased publication while claiming to be a neutral platform and keeping the protections a neutral platform enjoys.

I think you’re mixing legality and morality.

morally, freedom of speech has no distinction between publisher and platform. and if YouTube wants to be a dick, as long as they aren’t acting fraudulently, they should be able to.

 

[Tourmaline]

I think you’re mixing legality and morality.

morally, freedom of speech has no distinction between publisher and platform. and if YouTube wants to be a dick, as long as they aren’t acting fraudulently, they should be able to.

Platform, or Publisher?

When the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on social media censorship late last month, liberal Democratic congressman Ted Lieu transformed into a hardcore libertarian. “This is a stupid and ridiculous hearing,” he said, because “the First Amendment applies to the government, not private...

www.city-journal.org

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.

Basically, if they are not neutral, then they are publishers, and can be held liable for libel based on the content they they do allow on their site.

Which obviously would be a very difficult situation for them to deal with, and would require them to not allow people to just upload what they want even to the extent that they do now.

Ultimately the legality is there to uphold the morality, and currently the legality is being circumvented for immoral reasons.

 

[Ludachris]

I'll just state the obvious - Youtube/Google is in the business of making money, first and foremost. They are the two largest search engines in the world and their algorithms are designed to deliver search results that they think the user expects, or wants to see. In most cases the goal is to drive users to their revenue generating features/content and penalize those who try and game the system. Being fair about who gets exposure in their search results (on both Google and Youtube) has little to do with their algorithm design. There is always a tie in to profit centers.

It might seem like censorship but I believe it has more to do with profits than ideology. Regardless if you feel that Google/Youtube has a responsibility to the public when it comes to their search platforms, their responsibility to shareholders outweighs everything else. If you've spent any time dealing with SEO work over the past 2 decades none of this is news to you.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[pmaloneus]

I'll just state the obvious - Youtube/Google is in the business of making money, first and foremost. They are of the two largest search engines in the world and their algorithms are designed to deliver search results that they think the user expects, or wants to see. In most cases the goal is to drive users to their revenue generating features/content and penalize those who try and game the system. Being fair about who gets exposure in their search results (on both Google and Youtube) has little to do with their algorithm design. There is always a tie in to profit centers.

It might seem like censorship but I believe it has more to do with profits than ideology. Regardless if you feel that Google/Youtube has a responsibility to the public when it comes to their search platforms, their responsibility to shareholders outweighs everything else. If you've spent any time dealing with SEO work over the past 2 decades none of this is news to you.

this..... it's not a bug... its a feature.... all decision, even 'shitty' ones are made to increase dollars.