A thread about Youtube business practices.

[YNM]

3 hours ago, DDE said:

(especially from taxpayer-filled coffers)

Breitbart and Sinclair would like to introduce themselves to you.

 

Not all of them do - even if each of them have their own negative side - but if the news organization is being used to help some private coffers or some greedy government then I'd rather walk out entirely. I want actual data, I want the voice of everyone, not what makes someone some money.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Deddly
Profanity removed

[DDE]

@YNM, in the face of plummeting profit margins, there isn’t going to be news with endogenous funding. You’re going to end up with

45 minutes ago, YNM said:

private coffers or some greedy government

or you’re going to end up with a group of people that either fund the outlet themselves, or through donations - both cases are usually even more prone to bias, and often serve as cover for covens of activists with audiences that expect and want slanted reporting that confirms their beliefs.

ABANDON ALL HOPE

[YNM]

35 minutes ago, DDE said:

In the face of plummeting profit margins, there isn’t going to be news with endogenous funding.

There are - news which are funded by everyone, without a stop, but is allowed to operate free from the government. Say... something british.

And news that are driven by true journalism - they still exist, most strikingly in documentaries. (This particular one wouldn't be possible without YouTube.)

And while individual persons might be useless, if you gather a large enough diverse set, you get the full view.

Making political content outright unfavorable on YouTube would massively make the table slanted to one side only.

[Vanamonde]

Lots of politics here, guys. Leave it aside, please. Some posts trimmed.