What feels different today is the scale and automation: traditional networks relied on human editors and clear standards, while YouTube uses opaque algorithms that can affect visibility and revenue in ways creators don’t always understand. That shift makes the control feel more intrusive, but the underlying principle - 'the distributor sets the rules' - has been part of media distribution for decades.
The part that's new in the distributor setting the rules dynamic is that there is no specific "they" to blame for the rules.
The strangest content has found me on YT
The correct answer here, rather disappointingly, is that they were never neutral. Google Videos (the one that Google actually launched) arguably is a neutral service, but YouTube was always designed to be a social media (even if that term is not as well-known at the time as it is now). It even had five star ratings, which as the style for its time. It is always closer to Instagram rather than Dropbox (although that's an anachronistic comparison since that YouTube was the first of the three).
Though
> traditional networks relied on... clear standards
this was never true
Or with a politician not liking a comedian? How would you rate the clarity of that rule?
But also, so does YouTube has standards to comply with laws, regulations, and advertiser demands, how does any of that adds clarity? The totality of those regulations is pretty fuzzy with plenty of changes in interpretation of the supposedly clear rules.
> Youtube is full of ads that would never be shown on cable TV.
Sure, one vague set of rules can still be more restrictive than another vague set of rules
Soon, assuming my setup continues to work, my youtube experience will be completely unlike the default: no shorts, no autoplay, no ads, no sidebar recommendations, homepage is subscriptions, no premium.
I'm bleeding them dry!
(i'm not affiliated except as a user)
> Algorithms
(Okay, it's a different subject and totally different algorithms but still what I was reminded of.)
Why should people be banned for these? I don’t agree with either group, generally, but I don’t really see the harm either?
If the election and vaccines are so air tight, why doesn’t anyone just publish a piece tearing down the top N counterarguments? There are a few that aren’t obviously stupid and would require more research for any random person to be sure they are wrong, but I haven’t seen anyone publish solid deconstruction pieces on them. I don’t really know why, though.
It seems like it has been moralized and the people who are “right” don’t have to actually rebut arguments against their position because they are so right? I don’t get it.
12. Taylor B, Miller E, Farrington CP, Petropoulos MC, Favot-Mayaud I, Li J, Waight PA. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet 1999; 353(9169): 2026-9.
13. Taylor B, Miller E, Lingam R, Andrews N, Simmons A, Stowe J. Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study. BMJ 2002; 324(7334): 393-6.
14. Farrington CP, Miller E, Taylor B. MMR and autism: further evidence against a causal association. Vaccine 2001; 19(27): 3632-5.
15. Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, Schendel D, Wohlfahrt J, Thorsen P, Olsen J, Melbye M. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. N Engl J Med 2002; 347(19): 1477-82.
16. Smeeth L, Cook C, Fombonne E, Heavey L, Rodrigues LC, Smith PG, Hall AJ. MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study. Lancet 2004; 364(9438): 963-9.
17. Makela A, Nuorti JP, Peltola H. Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. Pediatrics 2002; 110(5): 957-63.
18. Jain A, Marshall J, Buikema A, Bancroft T, Kelly JP, Newschaffer CJ. Autism occurrence by MMR vaccine status among US children with older siblings with and without autism. JAMA 2015; 313(15): 1534-40.
19. Uno Y, Uchiyama T, Kurosawa M, Aleksic B, Ozaki N. Early exposure to the combined measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and thimerosal-containing vaccines and risk of autism spectrum disorder. Vaccine 2015; 33(21): 2511-6.
20. Hviid A, Hansen JV, Frisch M, Melbye M. Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism: A Nationwide Cohort StudyMeasles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism. 2019.
21. Hviid A, Stellfeld M, Wohlfahrt J, Melbye M. Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism. JAMA 2003; 290(13): 1763-6.
22. Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, Lieu TA, Rhodes PH, Black SB, Shinefield H, Chen RT. Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases. Pediatrics 2003; 112(5): 1039-48.
23. Andrews N, Miller E, Grant A, Stowe J, Osborne V, Taylor B. Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United kingdom does not support a causal association. Pediatrics 2004; 114(3): 584-91.
24. Croen LA, Matevia M, Yoshida CK, Grether JK. Maternal Rh D status, anti-D immune globulin exposure during pregnancy, and risk of autism spectrum disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199(3): 234.e1-6.
25. Price CS, Thompson WW, Goodson B, Weintraub ES, Croen LA, Hinrichsen VL, Marcy M, Robertson A, Eriksen E, Lewis E, Bernal P, Shay D, Davis RL, DeStefano F. Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism. Pediatrics 2010; 126(4): 656-64.
26. Uno Y, Uchiyama T, Kurosawa M, Aleksic B, Ozaki N. The combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and the total number of vaccines are not associated with development of autism spectrum disorder: the first case-control study in Asia. Vaccine 2012; 30(28): 4292-8.
27. DeStefano F, Price CS, Weintraub ES. Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism. J Pediatr 2013; 163(2): 561-7.
From this site https://www.vaccinesafety.edu/do-vaccines-cause-autism/
You have to be incredibly naive to think information/evidence is treated equally.
If you prove one lie wrong 20 are up and running.
Imagine your proposal in court: if you're caught in a lie, just move the goalpost and if found guilty of lying in court nothing happens!
Because the super duper rock solid evidence that will take 20 years will surely convince everyone to switch sides.
It's the opposite.
Conspiracy theorists cannot be reasoned with. Recently some people took a flat-earther to one of the poles and showed him the 24 hours of daylight to prove the earth is a spheroid, and he went into all sorts of mental gymnastics to cope with the cognitive dissonance rather than face the fact that he's stupid and got had. Something about how there must be some other way to reconcile it with the midnight sun. Anyways.
In other words, people who are right don't have to rebut the arguments of conspiracy theorists because it doesn't matter. The conspiracy theorists will simply invent a new reason why their beliefs, upon which their entire self identity is built, are able to persist.
They bring the quality of the platform down and sully YouTube's reputation.
because it takes a lot of time and effort to do a proper debunking, during which the liers make up 10 new lies, which again you would have to debunk.
You seem to have confused online social medial platforms with common carriers which is an extremely popular error lately.
What makes it not an infringement is not that Facebook is not the state; it’s that Facebook does not encompass the traditional function of the municipality. The state action doctrine does not apply.
This is like my Google Wallet where I have hundreds of old boarding passes that can only be deletion d by editing each on. No delete all, no multi select. I consider this malicious compliance, where Google sees a way to store your history (travel in this case) despite having all other location history off.
Hadn't thought of it that way before but this sounds spot-on.
chasing0entropy•2mo ago