Good old fashioned censorship

OP, what am I missing in the moon landing screenshot that points to censorship?

early wrote:

OP, what am I missing in the moon landing screenshot that points to censorship?

You forgot to put your crazy glasses on before looking at it. Here you can borrow mine.

early wrote:

OP, what am I missing in the moon landing screenshot that points to censorship?

No idea. Whatever this is I don't see it....

Oof, got me with a zinger there huh!

Im pointing out the fact that youtube places an "information" window on certain videos to push the "official" version of the story. They also manipulate the search results so that instead of finding the videos with higher view counts or more comments, you get only the videos they want you to see, which are made by the approved people.

Im also citing the fact that they dont seem to need to do this on videos in which debate silly topics, but nonetheless are widely known and becoming more prevalent (flat earth).

The connection im making is that the ***government*** doesnt care if you belive the earth is flat, but they DO care if you think the CIA killed Kennedy, or that the moon landings were faked. Therefore, they take the time to shove their version of the story into your face, so you arent distracted by those silly little things called thoughts/questions/ideas/etc.

Just sit down on your couch, take your perscription pills, eat your tv dinner, and dont worry about anything

I'm having trouble figuring out what your point is. You are saying that Youtube's allowance of the conspiracy videos to remain up indicates that Youtube supports some of the arguments behind the conspiracy theories, while they don't do so for the Flat Earth stuff because there is no truth to it? [Edit- I see your above post now and get your point]

The JFK story is the ultimate conspiracy theory, in fact it's why the CIA came up with the term "conspiracy theorist" as a derogatory label for anybody asking questions that mainstream government/corporate/media elite don't like. It's an utterly bullshit label.
You can start with JFK to educate yourself as to the extreme lengths the US government will go to create a fake reality (the Zapruder film was altered). They have been extremely successful with it since WWII, and the vast majority of Americans operate under a complete illusion as to the real intentions and activities of it's shadow government. Deception is the CIA's number one job, and they are very, very good at it.

rmoto003 wrote:

Oof, got me with a zinger there huh!

Im pointing out the fact that youtube places an "information" window on certain videos to push the "official" version of the story. They also manipulate the search results so that instead of finding the videos with higher view counts or more comments, you get only the videos they want you to see, which are made by the approved people.

Im also citing the fact that they dont seem to need to do this on videos in which debate silly topics, but nonetheless are widely known and becoming more prevalent (flat earth).

The connection im making is that the ***government*** doesnt care if you belive the earth is flat, but they DO care if you think the CIA killed Kennedy, or that the moon landings were faked. Therefore, they take the time to shove their version of the story into your face, so you arent distracted by those silly little things called thoughts/questions/ideas/etc.

Just sit down on your couch, take your perscription pills, eat your tv dinner, and dont worry about anything

Or maybe it is because more people are interested in learning the more widely accepted history rather than the conspiracy theories and they are trying to get people to watch their videos rather than sifting through tons of crap before just giving up and finding it elsewhere. Therefore, they prioritize the "true" stories.

Sounds like a solid business model to me. But no, it is probably the lizard people in charge of Google.

Oh so it's not the search results souch that got you wadded up it's the link to the brittanica page.

Well here's a little explanation.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/7/17437816/google-britannica-insights-search-encyclopedia

And here's an excerpt from the actual JFK murder brittanica page

MotoTribology wrote:

Or maybe it is because more people are interested in learning the more widely accepted history rather than the conspiracy theories and they are trying to get people to watch their videos rather than sifting through tons of crap before just giving up and finding it elsewhere. Therefore, they prioritize the "true" stories.

Sounds like a solid business model to me. But no, it is probably the lizard people in charge of Google.

That doesnt come off to you as even a tiny bit concerning? The official story is what happened, and thats the end of it. Operation Northwoods isnt real, the Gulf of Tonkin is just a bunch of nonsense, and the Catholic church has no pedophiles whatsoever. End of story. After all, thats the truth, right?

"Interested in learning widely accepted history..." - if youre interested in that, why would you be on youtube looking up conspiracy videos? On top of that, Youtube is a private company. They get paid by people watching their videos. Why would they cut into their own profits by filtering out their highly viewed content (assuming it isnt obscene or violent)?

My point is that they wouldnt- they would give you whatever videos you decided to search for.

I said in an earlier post, I have no issues with content being removed that is harmful (like saying the parents of the kids from sandy hook need to be confronted). But this recent trend in only being shown the content they want you to see isnt at all concerning? The desire to control the population is anything but a new idea. Governments have been trying to do that and succeeding for decades.

Where are they only showing you content they want you to see?

early wrote:

Where are they only showing you content they want you to see?

In the search results. All the results are low view count videos from authoritative(their word) sources like CBS, New York Times, CBC, etc..

They are selectively filtering out content they dont want you to see, and pushing the "official" version of the story with the links to Encyclopedia Britannica.

rmoto003 wrote:

That doesnt come off to you as even a tiny bit concerning? The official story is what happened, and thats the end of it. Operation Northwoods isnt real, the Gulf of Tonkin is just a bunch of nonsense, and the Catholic church has no pedophiles whatsoever. End of story. After all, thats the truth, right?

"Interested in learning widely accepted history..." - if youre interested in that, why would you be on youtube looking up conspiracy videos? On top of that, Youtube is a private company. They get paid by people watching their videos. Why would they cut into their own profits by filtering out their highly viewed content (assuming it isnt obscene or violent)?

My point is that they wouldnt- they would give you whatever videos you decided to search for.

I said in an earlier post, I have no issues with content being removed that is harmful (like saying the parents of the kids from sandy hook need to be confronted). But this recent trend in only being shown the content they want you to see isnt at all concerning? The desire to control the population is anything but a new idea. Governments have been trying to do that and succeeding for decades.

That's not it at all.

Your entire complaint is about prioritization. They must have some reasoning behind it. I don't pretend to understand their "Al Gore-Rhythms" but to "keep down the truth" doesn't make much sense. What is there to gain?

- It wouldn't help them financially
- it wouldn't help them socially
- I guess you could argue it might help with their credibility, but that doesn't relate to clicks, which is their concern.

The only thing I could think of would be if there was some threat held over their head if they didn't comply. If you want to convince people of that, then you'll need more than "My personal search results based off my own internet usage patterns and Google's algorithms deterred from what I expected."

rmoto003 wrote:

In the search results. All the results are low view count videos from authoritative(their word) sources like CBS, New York Times, CBC, etc..

They are selectively filtering out content they dont want you to see, and pushing the "official" version of the story with the links to Encyclopedia Britannica.

So let me get this straight.

Your definition of censorship is not showing you conspiracy theory videos in the top 6 results when your search is "JFK assassination"

Yet when you search "moon landing conspiracy" there are 6 videos with "conspiracy" in the title.

Jeez....

rmoto003 wrote:

In the search results. All the results are low view count videos from authoritative(their word) sources like CBS, New York Times, CBC, etc..

They are selectively filtering out content they dont want you to see, and pushing the "official" version of the story with the links to Encyclopedia Britannica.

This might help your understanding of search prioritization:

How Does YouTube Prioritize Its Results

Major media companies pay a lot to their content creators. They know how to title, tag, describe, and link the content to absolutely maximize their search prioritization. The average conspiracy theorist making videos in their basement....not so much.

early wrote:

So let me get this straight.

Your definition of censorship is not showing you conspiracy theory videos in the top 6 results when your search is "JFK assassination"

Yet when you search "moon landing conspiracy" there are 6 videos with "conspiracy" in the title.

Jeez....

Well jeez, here ya go then. Not hard to search this stuff yourself

rmoto003 wrote:

Well jeez, here ya go then. Not hard to search this stuff yourself

Like I said above, with no rules for net neutrality the door is wide open for information to be filtered on multiple levels.

Is this better?

rmoto003 wrote:

Sorry but i tried to put out some factual arguments in that thread but as you can see, they were met with various memes and name calling (of how I am an idiot, of course).

And surely enough, it didnt take long for me to be called a moron again ?

My facts dont come from youtube. I mentioned that my interest in the subject was simply turned on by one of those dumb conspiracy videos on youtube. If you read the post without immediately resorting to name calling you would have seen that.

Im not trying to be condescending. Almost every reply in that thread was about how stupid I am, so why am I going to try to respond to that? Your minds are already made up on the subject. Im an idiot, youre right and Im wrong.

I picked apart your arguments and mis-information in the last thread step by step and you disappeared from the thread. Only to come back so you can start a new one that doesn't show how looney toons your original arguments were. That's a troll son. Every single thing you mentioned in the last thread was YouTube conspiracy garbage and horrid lack of general knowledge about space flight in general.