CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 25234
PostPosted: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:46 pm
 




Down 90%. Wow.


Online
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 44859
PostPosted: Wed Mar 24, 2021 5:18 pm
 


Social Media silences Conser. . oh, wait.

Not surprising, really. If it doesn't make Google money, they will not promote you. And Google makes money through controversy.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1804
PostPosted: Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:32 pm
 




Online
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 44859
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2021 6:05 am
 


I thought we were talking 'News' organizations? ;)


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2797
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2021 9:42 am
 


It was nice when youtube was one stop shopping for all viewpoints. You could get everything from left, center, to right all in one location. That is how it should be. Let everyone put out whatever content they choose in one big free market of ideas. Let the people choose the winners and losers on their own with their clicks, views, likes, and subscriptions.

Now some knucklehead at youtube wants to call all the shots. They want to pick the winners and losers. It seems that none of the content providers are happy anymore. I say its time for some competition. How hard can it be? Its not like we are working with sub atomic particles here. Its video for cryin out loud. Video has been around since the 70's. Besides the people producing the videos are the ones doing all the work. They are spending the time and money to produce the video. They are risking arrest, lawsuits, assault, and sometimes their lives to bring us the videos. They do all the hard work, and youtube collects the lions share of the money. It would be like someone spending their time and wearing out their car driving for uber, only to get 5 percent of the money. Screw youtube! I cant believe that some millionaires have not put together an alternative already. Simply offer a better guaranteed payday to all providers, and ZERO censorship. Youtube would not last another year. Everyone from the left to the right is sick of the censorship. Everyone from the left to the right is sick of the games cutting into their revenue. Pay the providers what they are worth, and let them produce whatever the hell they want to. Sounds simple to me.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33877
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2021 9:49 am
 


Youtube is a business and they have absolutely no obligations to publish everybody's shit. Their goal is to make money so the only "people" they have to answer to are investors and advertisers.

...and no, it's not censorship.


Online
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 44859
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2021 10:02 am
 


rickc rickc:
How hard can it be?


Google starts by having custom made servers installed in massive server farms. They then roll out an infrastructure that makes information available to multiple server farms like it, in many different geographic locations.

When you upload a video, an AI program takes that video, recognizes the language spoken (if any) turns the speech in to searchable test. Takes any written word and does the same. Samples the sound for a bajillion different protected songs, and turns that into searchable text. Then it compresses and optimizes the video so it will play at the lowest bandwidth supported, and makes it available easily and efficiently world wide.

It's actually pretty hard.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2797
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2021 10:16 am
 


raydan raydan:
Youtube is a business and they have absolutely no obligations to publish everybody's shit. Their goal is to make money so the only "people" they have to answer to are investors and advertisers.

...and no, it's not censorship.

I agree, they are a business. A business that needs some competition. Last year I cancelled my satellite provider and went with youtube tv. They did an ok job for a while. Then some youtube asshat had a new coke moment and thought that it would be a great idea to raise their prices at a time when the unemployment rate was second to only the great depression. Needless to say that I dropped them, along with lots of other people. Every time that I log onto youtube, they are begging me to come back. They killed the golden goose. The change lost in my sofa is more money than I will ever pay for TV again. I will never pay for TV again, ever. I know many people that think the same way, and have cut the cord for good. Their own arrogance has hurt their revenue stream.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2797
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2021 10:49 am
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:
rickc rickc:
How hard can it be?


Google starts by having custom made servers installed in massive server farms. They then roll out an infrastructure that makes information available to multiple server farms like it, in many different geographic locations.

When you upload a video, an AI program takes that video, recognizes the language spoken (if any) turns the speech in to searchable test. Takes any written word and does the same. Samples the sound for a bajillion different protected songs, and turns that into searchable text. Then it compresses and optimizes the video so it will play at the lowest bandwidth supported, and makes it available easily and efficiently world wide.

It's actually pretty hard.

Lol!!! I get it, google is a monster that sits at the top of the food chain. I do not have a problem with google. I use it numerous times a day. I have tried different search engines, but always come back to google. It is my opinion that they are the best at what they do when it comes to search engines. That said, I do have a problem with the way that youtube runs their business. I am not alone. The guy at the top of this thread is a lefty. He is not happy. The right has been bitching about youtube for years. Three employees at paypal started youtube. Google bought youtube, they did not create it. Sure they use their impressive muscle to push the product, but they do not create product. They are nothing without the creators.

An upstart company will not have the impressive infrastructure that google has. Tesla does not have the impressive infrastructure of the big three automakers either. That is not stopping them from becoming the premier maker of electric automobiles is it? If I could place a bet on which automaker is still going to be around 50 years from now, my money is on tesla. Amazon paled in comparison to borders books when they opened up in a garage in 1994. Borders books shut down in 2011. You have to start somewhere. The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

The content providers are not happy. That is their own words, I do not provide content. The viewers are not happy with their shows being messed with. Those are my words. I would rather have a company with crappy start up infrastructure that had the support of the content providers and the viewers. Its the first rule of business: always give the people what they want. Youtube is failing in that arena.


Online
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 44859
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2021 11:03 am
 


rickc rickc:
I would rather have a company with crappy start up infrastructure that had the support of the content providers and the viewers. Its the first rule of business: always give the people what they want. Youtube is failing in that arena.


Vimeo tries to start a video service. Google bought them.

Remember that thing called 'Vines' that was a lot like Tick Tok?

People try to start up competitors, but the big boys have the deck stacked in their favour. Just like Bell, Microsoft, General Electric and so many before them.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2797
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2021 11:47 am
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:
rickc rickc:
I would rather have a company with crappy start up infrastructure that had the support of the content providers and the viewers. Its the first rule of business: always give the people what they want. Youtube is failing in that arena.


Vimeo tries to start a video service. Google bought them.

Remember that thing called 'Vines' that was a lot like Tick Tok?

People try to start up competitors, but the big boys have the deck stacked in their favour. Just like Bell, Microsoft, General Electric and so many before them.

Hey I hear you. I know it seem strange for a rightie to call for some government restraint on business, but monopolies are bad for free markets. I would dare say that monopolies are far worse than government regulations. Monopolies kill the very spirit of competition that the free markets are supposed to foster. Government agencies approve the buying and selling of these businesses. They should not approve when it creates a monopoly. The Sherman Anti Trust Act was passed in 1890 to prevent monopolies. Yet here we are 131 years later still reinventing the wheel.


Online
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 44859
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:06 pm
 


rickc rickc:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
rickc rickc:
I would rather have a company with crappy start up infrastructure that had the support of the content providers and the viewers. Its the first rule of business: always give the people what they want. Youtube is failing in that arena.


Vimeo tries to start a video service. Google bought them.

Remember that thing called 'Vines' that was a lot like Tick Tok?

People try to start up competitors, but the big boys have the deck stacked in their favour. Just like Bell, Microsoft, General Electric and so many before them.

Hey I hear you. I know it seem strange for a rightie to call for some government restraint on business, but monopolies are bad for free markets. I would dare say that monopolies are far worse than government regulations. Monopolies kill the very spirit of competition that the free markets are supposed to foster. Government agencies approve the buying and selling of these businesses. They should not approve when it creates a monopoly. The Sherman Anti Trust Act was passed in 1890 to prevent monopolies. Yet here we are 131 years later still reinventing the wheel.


To my knowledge, it not the Sherman act that is the problem, it's how the Sherman Act is applied. Places like Facebook haven't had that act applied because regulators get told 'someone can go and create their own Facebook...'. Which is true. But then they get Instagrammed when they get popular.

If companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google had to stop being the privacy violating monopolies they are - in order to sell advertising, that might change things. Break off the Advertising departments into separate companies. Take away the incentive to get as much data on people as possible in order to build the huge personality profiles, then I think the problem of requiring controversy to sell eyeballs would fix itself.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.