Youtube's Censoring My Videos

[lyonspotter]

If you watch this video of mine on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVuh4AiZ-VY), the viewcount claims the video only has 328 views currently.

From the onset of the upload, I had to file a complaint that the video constituted a 'fair use' of all copyrighted content I sampled within it. The video was finally allowed to be published early in the morning yesterday, as NBC Universal attempted to block the video for my use of their content (Their film 'Jarhead' appears prevalently and unfavorably within it).

Yesterday, the video was stuck on 305 views for nearly the entire day. This morning, it logs an 'entire' 328. When I sign into my youtube account, however, the statistical breakdown I can dig up on the video claims that the viewcount is vastly more than 328. (Nearly double that 328 number actually... although I am suspicious of that estimate as well! Some 800 people viewed a thread on the video here on DU alone. Even if only half of those clicked, it's still more than 328 just from DU viewership!)

I find youtube's 'algorithmic demotion' policy toward any video that is not family sensitive to be....'peculiar' at the least and 'untruthful' at worst. More on algorithmic demotion below. It's a watered down way of saying 'censorship toward anything we don't like.' People will undoubtedly say 'just put your content on another site' but no matter what the key point is: If something has a certain amount of views, it has that many views. Period!

Youtube Censorship: http://help.youtube.com/group/youtube-howto/browse_thread/thread/108275265467c9cf

[no limit]

1. Yup. Youtube wants to silence you by cutting your view count in half

They clearly have nothing better to do with their time.

[lyonspotter]

2. Did you follow the link I provided? They admit to doing such things.

[no limit]

3. Acorss the board. Nobody is targetting you, chill out dude

And I just clicked the link, what you posted was to a message board post. It shows nothing about their official policy and nowhere does it suggest that they cut down the amount of views you have based on content; just that they don't rank some videos with sexual content as high on their most viewed page for obvious reasons.

[lyonspotter]

7. Censorship should never be a 'chill out dude' issue.

Especially if it is 'across the board.' Things are not that simple in life.

[no limit]

8. But again, nobody is censoring you.

[lyonspotter]

11. They admit to censoring videos.

How do you possibly make your above claim?

[no limit]

12. They admit to applying their own policies to videos as is their right.

Nothing you posted shows them withholding views from you. Have you considered posting your video on a different site as is your right?

[lyonspotter]

16. I already said that in my account, I can see it has more views than 328.

It says I have double that. I am suspicious of that number as well however, because even on DU a thread here went much higher.

It is anyone's right to post a video to another site, one's own website, etc. Just because youtube is the most popular video venue in the world doesn't mean one has to post there or anything...

My comment is that if some video has 'x' amount of views, then that is how many views it has. Anything else is untruthful and false. So now you are defending falsehood.

[cherokeeprogressive]

133. Here's something simple: Censorship is a GOVERNMENT action.

Youtube owes you NOTHING.

See? It's simple... If you disagree, start your own 'tube website.

[lyonspotter]

134. Just surprised that 99% of DUers...

...on this thread support the willed deception YouTube admits they use in suppressing (censorship suppresses, by definition) the voice of dissent.

[cherokeeprogressive]

136. It is NOT their responsibility to give voice to ANYONE'S dissent.

They own their website, and its content.

Understand, that if it were GOVTUBE, you'd have a leg to stand on. Here, not so much.

[lyonspotter]

138. I'm mainly against the deception. Thx. N/T

[lyonspotter]

4. They have bots and algorithms that do it.

It wouldn't take any of their time at all.

Thanks for the uncharitable response and unrec.

[no limit]

6. I didn't unrec, not a fan of that feature.

Like I said, relax.

[lyonspotter]

10. There is a time to relax, and there is time to have concern about something.

Censorship is one of those things that makes me concerned.

[Yuugal]

5. just watched it

I liked it. Your view count is still the same though.

[lyonspotter]

9. Well, view counts are supposed to update every couple hours...

...I noticed yesterday that the viewcount did not update for nearly 24!

Thanks for watching.

[avaistheone1]

159. At one time not so long ago the view count was updated real time.

[lyonspotter]

160. At this point in YouTube's "evolution"...

...the view count is real time up to the 200th view. Then it updates every couple hours. Or it "should."

That is why I was disappointed that it did not update at all for 24 hours. (My brother's account never has these sorts of glitches....Then again, he doesn't post political content).

[Ozymanithrax]

13. Just went to YOu tube, and listened to it.

It is still 328.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

14. Sorry, YouTube isn't a public service.

It's a for-profit company and they can chose to show whatever they want. They have no obligation of any kind to allow you to show your video on their site.

[lyonspotter]

20. So you enjoy concepts like 'false advertising' then?

I am concerned with people here coming to the defense of falsehood.

I guess Nixon and Bush weren't so bad after all.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

What false advertising? n/t

[lyonspotter]

22. I'm arguing that my viewcount is misrepresented...do you affirm misrepresentation?

Do you affirm such falsehood? Do you affirm deceiving the public?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

24. That's not advertising.

And YouTube quite clearly states that they reserve the right to do what they're supposedly doing to your masterpiece, so it's difficult to argue that there's any intentional deception on their part.

[lyonspotter]

25. If the bank reserved the right to lie about the contents of your account...

...would you take issue?

Yes, and you would look for another bank. You would take issue with their dishonesty, even if they 'reserved the right' to be dishonest.

Why are you supporting deception? I am curious. Please, flesh that out. Did you like Nixon? Did you like Bush? Lying is cool? So long as you reserve the right?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

27. LOL. What a ridiculous comparison. n/t

[lyonspotter]

32. Would you care to address why you support deception?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

40. You keep changing your story.

First you were being censored, but you're obviously not being censored because everybody can still see the video.

Then it was "false advertising," except that it's not actually false advertising because it isn't advertising at all.

Now it's "deception" except for the fact that YouTube explicitly states that they reserve the right to do whatever they want with the view count. Now, as to my personal feelings on this matter, here they are: I don't care about your youtube view count. It's not important to me. It's a fucking youtube video view count. Now if somebody was misrepresenting your sperm count to you, then you'd have reason to be irate.

[lyonspotter]

45. Sperm count?

Interesting parallel. View count is like sperm count in some ways: the more sperm a man has the greater chance of fertilizing an egg, correct? Sure it only takes one sperm to fertilize an egg, but people who want to get pregnant complain about the condition of low sperm count for a reason.

I am complaining about viewcount because the greater the amount in viewcount, the greater reach the video has on random web and youtube searches.

So again, why are you affirming deception? Still foggy on that...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

123. Youtube view count is not like sperm count.

At least, not for any normal human being.

[lyonspotter]

124. You started the whole sperm count thing. NT.

[backwoodsbob]

154. do repukes have the right to yell cencorship

because they cant post their drivel here?

[lyonspotter]

156. Difference between YouTube and DU?

Survey says!... YouTube is open to users of all beliefs...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

162. No it isn't.

They pull down racist / nazi shit all the time.

[lyonspotter]

165. Touché!

I should revise my comment to state that the glaring difference between YouTube and DU is:

YouTube is open to users of a variety of views on life, including views on both the Left and the Right of the political sphere, to a very wide extent. DU does not tolerate in any capacity the advocating of Republican ideals, candidates, etc. ...Is this censorship on DUs part? I wouldn't say so, because it is open to only a specific set of people who hold specific types of ideas, and DU is up front about that (For example, a Luciferian is not welcome in a Christian church, etc).

However, YouTube is sort of this gigantic melting pot, where anyone all over the globe can start an account. You don't have to hold a specific set of ideas, in an overall sense. My issue, as I have re-iterated 100 times, is that what I find most disappointing is that so many here on this thread have defended YouTube in their policy of willed deception with misrepresenting the view counts. YouTube might not like my video or other people's that they have banned, but if the content is not beyond the pale, not racist, Eugenicist, not sympathetic to Nazism, etc., etc., etc...then why deceive the public in the effort to suppress a political point of view? It's sort of embarrassing that they do that. I am embarrassed for them, as much as I feel violated at all.

[berni_mccoy]

15. It's not censorship. Your video is viewable. It's called controlled reach

and since you are using their medium to publish the video, you are subject to that control.

For whatever reason, they have limited the hit-count on your video to prevent it from reaching the most-viewed categories. That's their prerogative since it is their site. If you think your video would be more popular on another site and get more attention, you should go there.

Try Current.tv.

[lyonspotter]

18. Thanks for the advice.

I think a blanket policy to control the reach of content is in fact censorship, but let's not split those linguistic/definitional hairs.

My post here is about truthfulness and about accuracy. Youtube admits they are willing to chose lie over truth, to hold videos down they find disagreeable. I think that is shameful.

Se la vie.

[blondeatlast]

29. Censorship isn't what YOU think it is. It has specific focus FOR A REASON. A business can refuse

to carry your t-shirt, your CD, or refuse to post their content on their server.

When a government does it--be afraid, be very afraid. But that isn't what happened here. I don't suffer false martyrs kindly.

[blondeatlast]

17. Please don't use "censorship" to describe this. It isn't. Like DU, YouTube is a

private entity and can control their content as they see fit.

[lyonspotter]

19. My post is about 'Truth' versus 'Misrepresentation'.

[blondeatlast]

21. Then change the subject line like you edited the last line of your post.

Simple as that.

[lyonspotter]

23. Initially, Youtube blocked my video. I had to fight with them to...

...post it, as I have a legal right through Fair Use to make a video like the one I made.

What they initially did is a form of censorship as well, as I wasn't doing anything illegal.

So there historically was censorship that was retracted...and now they just resort to misrepresentation of fact....sort of a long title.

[Berry Cool]

26. Oh, please. Once and for all, this is NOT censorship.

YouTube is not run by the government. It is a private enterprise and can run itself as it sees fit. You don't like how they present your videos? You're free to post them on another site. You are not being censored. "Censored" would be happening only if all public presentation avenues of your video were being blocked by the government.

For cripes' sake, where were you all through your 12th grade civics class that you didn't learn this stuff? Sheesh.

[lyonspotter]

28. Where were you all through college when Art History classes were being offered?

So When the LA County Museum of Art in 1966 restricted view of Ed Kienholz' sculpture "Back Seat Dodge," that wasn't censorship? Condemned as obscene by the County Board, it was shown for a time with the door closed, which a guard could open only in the presence of adults. That's blocking the public from the artist's intent!

That wasn't censorship? The government wasn't involved, yet speech was restricted, and misrepresentation of the artwork was imposed.

I guess you were ok with what Giuliani did to Chris Ofili's paintings at the Brooklyn Museum too.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

31. :facepalm:

The LA County Board of Supervisors is a government entity.

[blondeatlast]

34. There's not much one can do when the OP is being deliberatly obtuse.

But I do like a good debate when I know I (and you) are correct. :evilgrin:

[lyonspotter]

41. I don't mind if you are correct...

...on the definitional use of 'censorship'.

I have repeatedly asked you why you support youtube admitting they are intentionally deceptive in viewcounts. That is the main issue I have raised. My inquiry is: why do you support lying? You don't have an answer that will be satisfying.

[lyonspotter]

37. Point taken...

Now can you please explain why you support deception?

Tell me why you support youtube's policy regarding lying about viewcounts. Why are you supporting lying?

[blondeatlast]

39. Did s/he? Where? Be specific. nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

42. Upthread. He's mad because I don't care about YouTube fiddling with his view count. n/t

[lyonspotter]

46. I am not upset, 'mad'...to use your word.

I'm just actually shocked that you think lying is good and permissible. You are defending youtube's deception in saying that my viewcount is one number when in actuality it is much higher. I am begging to hear more actually on why you support lying, misrepresentation, and deception, but you refuse.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. They're just correcting the view count...

because of you spamming your video.

[lyonspotter]

52. My my....

So posting a video here on DU is spam now?

Didn't know you were so contemptuous of DU.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. It's not DU I'm contemptuous of.

[lyonspotter]

56. Then stop talking about spamming when you don't know what you are talking about....

....as usual!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Oh, it's spamming.

Hey everybody! Look at my video, they're trying to keep me down!

[lyonspotter]

60. Have to provide the evidence, right?

Or else you would deny the case on account of my having not provided it! Don't be so duplicitous!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. Could you rephrase that in the form of a rational sentence?

Kthnxbai.

[lyonspotter]

64. Sure...

"I need to provide you with the evidence, right? If I did not, you would deny my argument immediately on account of my having not provided the evidence! Don't be so duplicitous!"

Happy? Mr "Pron" Syrup...

[LanternWaste]

109. There are additional possibilities...

"Tell me why you support youtube's (sic) policy regarding lying about viewcounts (sic)..."

There are additional possibilities as to who is being dishonest or deceptive. Additionally, there are additional possibilities which do not rely on deception, either.

Anything from a mistake on your/their part, to incorrect counts in a data server. I certainly don't pretend to have absolute knowledge on which to base a righteous rage.

[lyonspotter]

116. So we are putting (sic)s all around now?...

...Is that appropriate, when the debate in which this series of comments flowed was extremely rapid? Be at least somewhat more charitable, please. You knew exactly what was meant. There was no need to point out such errors.

As for the logic of your comment, YouTube admits to cooking view counts and demoting videos that they take issue with (Sorry, never end a sentence with a preposition...I know).

Sure, I cannot be certain that we cannot attribute the view count discrepancy to technological error, but when YouTube admits to relying on willed deception in their official policy and rules, why should I my default interpretation (of the current affair) not be that they are doing precisely what they have promised to do?

[LanternWaste]

144. Now? I've always done it.

Now? I've always done it. An error in spelling can reflect many other errors.

Technological error... error on your part... lies on your part.. lies on their part. :shrug:

I simply don't give full faith and credit to righteous rages. Sorry.

[lyonspotter]

147. Who said anything about "righteous rage"?

I'm pointing out that YouTube admits to being deceptive. I think that is embarrassing, for them!

But you are cool with it...so what do you care. (sic...missed my question mark...typo...sorry). But you are cool with their deception... so Run alOng... (sic)...

[lyonspotter]

149. I'm calling bullshit that you always place (sic)...

...next to every linguistic error you find here on DU. But I'll do a quick scan to be sure. My hunch is that you placed those specific ones above merely to mock. Not appreciated.

[cherokeeprogressive]

135. LA County = GOVERNMENT. Which part of that do you not understand? n/t

[lyonspotter]

137. I admitted to being...

inaccurate on that point. Thanks for taking the time to read through all the thread in order to know my admission. Good that you didn't spend your valuable time reading. In effect, you've wasted mine because I had to inform you of my concession on that point.

However, the heart of the matter I raise is true: if suppression is the key to censorship, then what YouTube is doing partakes in such a strategy, even if they are not "the government."

The voice of dissent embedded within the video has been suppressed, by bots...and they detail it all out how such is accomplished.

Anyone who defends YouTube and their "right to do whatever they want, even be deceptive" in effect supports deception. (But those same people I would imagine will cry the very minute a Nixon or a Bush lie to the public).

[cherokeeprogressive]

139. You need to forget the word "censorship". You're still trying to use it in this post. n/t

[lyonspotter]

141. Please define censorship...

It only counts as censorship when a government imposes it?

Define Democracy. It is unelected rich white land owners who are sick of paying taxes to Mother England, while women and Africans don't count (except as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of representation in Congress)?

I reserve the right to find similarities between things... If we define censorship by the root of the strategy "to suppress the voice or literature, etc., of another by a more powerful entity" then that has happened to my video and many like it.

Don't tell me what words to "forget" or how to interpret their meaning.

[blondeatlast]

30. Please explain where your First Amendment rights have been violated,

because if they truly are, you have my support.

But try as I might with the info I have, I don't see it.

[lyonspotter]

33. I'm talking about deception and want an explanation...

...as to why you support it.

[blondeatlast]

35. No, you keep talking about censorship. I'm talking about free enterprise--and you keep dodging your

initial complaint.

Why are you avoiding your initial complaint?

[Vickers]

36. You have an unusual concept of censorship. n/t

[blondeatlast]

38. Not unusual...

WRONG.

But I appreciate your diplomacy... :thumbsup:

[Vickers]

43. I went through several edits...

:P

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Government agents are on to you.

I suggest buying batteries and bottled water and retreating into the desert for at least three or four months.

Avoid any search parties. They're going to come looking for you. Go. Go now.

[lyonspotter]

48. Huh?

Youtube admits to algorithmically demoting videos, as discussed above and on their policy page.

That is what this discussion is about.

Nice to be reacquainted with you, Mr PronSyrup. I recall your debating style as tedious and disagreeable, but that was a long time ago.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. Oh, right.

You were the global warming denier.

[lyonspotter]

51. Huh again? And you believed that...

...students on this link do not show signs illiteracy: http://livinnthebigtime.blogspot.com/2009/07/look-like-if-words-are-bleeding.html

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. I don't think you showed signs of literacy.

In that thread, in your global warming denial thread, or this thread.

[lyonspotter]

58. I beseech thee...O God of knowing what literacy is...

...please grant us thy wisdom and reveal to us that skill they call literacy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. In your case, it would involve understanding the words that you use.

"Censorship," for example. Or "research." "Spamming." "Advertising." "Lying."

[lyonspotter]

68. Yes...please (seriously...) explain...

what the word "lying" means.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. Calling this censorship would be a good example.

[lyonspotter]

107. Well...

kpominville has referred to what youtube is doing as 'fraud'...so he's on board with my definition of 'lying' to the extent that it matters and pertains here. What youtube is doing is misrepresenting the facts in order to suppress the views attributable to my video. This, my dear friend Pron Syrup, is a form of censorship to my view...as censorship seeks the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material, and the former is precisely what is happening. (Suppression = the curtailing or prohibiting of a specific voice, not necessarily the complete removal of speech, etc.).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

114. Yeah, but that person's full of shit too.

Assuming it's a different person.

[lyonspotter]

119. Again, uncharitable!

You implying I have two DU accounts now?

You started off your response to all of this by implying that I am 'paranoid.' Seems we have found someone else who fits that description.

Pron Syrup, you are fun.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

121. I think it's odd that the only person actually agreeing with you in this thread...

also has no clue what they're talking about.

[lyonspotter]

126. You disagreed vehemently with the premise...

...of the literacy thread that I posted. Many there agreed with me there, however. But on this occasion, you base the veracity of an argument/position on an ad populum basis? FAIL!

Ad populum is laughable as a justification.

[tammywammy]

50. If you're upset with "censorship"

I suggest starting your own website. Put your video of it and make your own counter. Then you'll never have to worry about YouTube again.

[lyonspotter]

55. That's not the point...

...Granted, youtube is the most popular website in the world for video content. I have my own website, and I post stuff there.

The point I am raising is: why do so many people on this thread support deception? Youtube is admittedly deceptive in how they tally video viewcounts. Why do we support this? Why do we support lying? Yet we felt so violated by the lies of Bush?...

[tammywammy]

59. Because you're referring to it as censorship and it's not

I don't put stock into what the video viewcounts are anyways when I look at a video. I also don't use YouTube as a news source.

[lyonspotter]

63. You might not put stock into viewcounts...

...but those who post videos are quite happy when the viewcount is higher and not misrepresented as lower. The higher viewcount unearths a video more easily in searches from the trillions of seconds of content that is youtube.

[tammywammy]

66. Then I suggest a strongly worded email to YouTube n/t

[lyonspotter]

69. It might be the right thing to do...

...I do know this has been a complaint of some of the more prevalent youtube users, but nothing has changed in over a year since the policy was instituted.

[blondeatlast]

61. Who's supporting deception? Most are calling out the deception--

YOURS, anyway.

[lyonspotter]

67. Let's talk about deception...

When my video has over 1000 views (as it does as youtube admits when I log into my personal account), to present to the world that the video only has 328 is nothing other than deception. It is a deviation from the actual facts, from the actual state of affairs...

You appear to support that deception, saying they 'reserve the right' to do so. So, why do you like deception? Do you enjoy it? You like when people lie to you? I'm just curious. Seriously!

[blondeatlast]

71. I "appear to support that deception?" How so--without dodging the question?

Where do I advocate for deception? Which post?

[lyonspotter]

73. In post #29, for example, you...

affirm that a business can conduct itself as it wishes up to disqualifying a user's content from their site, and...well...in this case youtube affirms being deceptive in viewcounts...that is how youtube wishes to conduct itself...so by inference I concluded that you believe it is ok for youtube to present viewcounts as they see fit, deceptively, since it is "their site." Wish to further elaborate?

[blondeatlast]

75. "by inference." Uh-huh. nt

[lyonspotter]

77. NT is right! Who is dodging and skirting now?!

[blondeatlast]

79. ...

:rofl:

[lyonspotter]

82. I'll ask you straight out...

...for the last time...and may your silence condemn you: do you support youtube's unabashed deception in lying about viewcounts?

Keep ROTFL, but your silence on this question means you are afraid to answer, IMO.

[blondeatlast]

86. Yes. They are controlling the product you AGREED to post on their server.

So yes, I support them "altering" view count.

Sorry if that hurts your feelings. I don't like that Wal-Mart insists that CDs be edited, either--but they are within their rights. No one is threatening your First Amendment rights.

[lyonspotter]

88. I getting beyond rights here...

...I'm asking you about your view of morals. I seriously want to know what YOU think about the concepts of lying and deception.

[blondeatlast]

91. Lying and deception are wrong. But that isnh't what's happening here. nt

[lyonspotter]

94. It is happening...

If my video actually was clicked on my 1000 people, and youtube has an algorithm to tell the public only 328 people have clicked, then that is willful deceit!

[blondeatlast]

95. 100 DIFFERENT people? 1000 DIFFERNT IP addresses? nt

[lyonspotter]

98. As I mentioned...

...the statistics that youtube provides in one's personal account...under 'insight' and other numbers breakdowns...affirm that my video has way more clicks than what is advertised on the face of the video when viewed by the public. That is deviation from fact. Deviation from fact is misrepresentation, no?

[Truth2Tell]

110. You are arguing against a straw man

this whole thread. Nobody is suggesting that YouTube doesn't have the RIGHT to censor videos. Of course they do. Just like DU has the right to censor. And yes, they both use censorship regularly, as is their right. And yes, what YouTube does in this regard IS a form of censorship - no question about it. And yes, it is deliberately deceptive. But it is their right, and I don't see anyone, including the OP, suggesting that it's not. Nevertheless, I think whenever anyone is being deliberately deceptive, it's good to call them out publicly on it.

YouTube clearly has an overarching policy of deceiving viewers about what is or is not popular, with the intent of driving views to what they want them to view. In the case of this particular video - or any single video for that matter - the deception isn't earth shattering. But the overall policy is deceptive and scummy, and I see nothing wrong with pointing it out.

[lyonspotter]

127. The most important issue is the morality of the policy...

[LanternWaste]

117. Like sea-monkeys?

Like sea-monkeys?

[TK421]

72. Send this to Olbermann n/t

[lyonspotter]

74. Why?

Doesn't he have better things to report on? Like our two wars and threats of others....like joblessness...like the myriad of other problems we face?...

Send this to him.

[TK421]

76. You seem upset enough over this to post a thread about it...don't you think it is important?

just think about it...Keith can finally expose YouTube for the monsters they really are!

[lyonspotter]

78. I do think it is important...but not more important than the issues

of war, joblessness, and the crookedness of the Federal Reserve, for example.

[TK421]

80. Make an OP about those issues, I would like to hear your thoughts on them n/t

[lyonspotter]

83. Honestly...

I am kind of shocked to see you would request an OP on those things from me. Seems most of the readers here are pretty convinced of my lack of intelligence.

[Beacho]

81. They're a private business, hence no censorship

And they are not deleting your content, just controlling what appears on their front page. That's like accusing a bookstore, selling your book, of 'censorship' because they will not put it in the front window.

[lyonspotter]

84. No, it's not...

...and it's not about the front page.... it's about when some user plugs in the pertinent search terms, my video would not result on even the top page results. It is a subtle way of silencing the voice of dissent.

[Beacho]

99. Do you have an advertising contract with You Tube?

If not, then they are not obligated to promote your video and you have no claim to their infrastructure or how they manage it. Does it suck? Yep, but you still get to host your videos using their infrastructure and band width. You need to take charge on promoting your own video and stop whining because Poppa You Tube won't do it for you.

That's life in the big city

[lyonspotter]

101. The issue for me first is deception...

...and secondly why so many people here on DU support youtube's admitted deceit.

Why do you support them in their willful deceit. Please elaborate. (This is a moral issue).

[Beacho]

106. It's not a matter of supporting You Tube

It's about the clear concept that You Tube is a private corporation that only answers to it's advertisers and share holders.

As has been stated before, YT is not engaged in any 'deceit'. The rules and policies are clearly stated and they made no attempt to hide it. I also suggest that you read your TOS, which you agreed to when you signed up for an account. Basically it says they can do anything they want, up to and including deleting your account for what ever reason.

You got no case.

[lyonspotter]

108. I'm talking about morals first...then...

'cases' can be addressed.

kpominville has referred below to what youtube is doing as 'fraud'...so he's on board with my definition of 'lying' and censorship to the extent that it matters and pertains here. What youtube is doing is misrepresenting the facts in order to suppress my video. This is a form of censorship to my view...as censorship seeks the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material, and the former is precisely what is happening. (Suppression = the curtailing or prohibiting of a specific voice, not necessarily the complete removal of speech, etc.).

Yes...youtube can conduct itself in this way and whichever way they wish, and I did read the TOS and I am aware that they can terminate a user's account at their whim if they so desire... they have done it to countless others, and they have been called nazi-tube so many times I cannot count because of their behaving in such ways... My hope is that more people here on DU would bemoan the deception. If a video has 1000 views, then it has 1000 views, period...regardless of whether youtube likes the content or not.

[Beacho]

111. It's not deception if they are seeking to deceive

*AGAIN* YT made it very clear what they were doing and why they were doing it. I'm sorry but I can only say "The Sun rises in the East" so many times before it just gets annoying

Good luck to you

[lyonspotter]

120. Whoa, you are getting a little too 'meta' with that...

..."It's not deception if they are seeking to deceive" comment. Good luck with that.

[kpominville]

85. Actually They are Misreporting, which is fraud

It would be more akin to a book retailer not reporting sales numbers for your book even though you should be on the best sellers list.

[lyonspotter]

87. O M Goodness!

Someone has finally...finally...brought an analogy that hits the nail squarely on the head! Thank you!

[blondeatlast]

89. Not quite. The NYT started "daggering" RW books on the bestseller lists because

they weren't actually "sold;" they were given away by RW websites/organizations.etc. by the literal THOUSANDS to pad up the retail counts. I was in publishing at the time and it was a huge stink.

The counts WERE being misrepresented, just not by the bookstores. And that's pretty close to what's happening here.

Facts hurt and fucks with preconceived notions. But it remains fact.

[lyonspotter]

92. So you are accusing...

...me of spamming too? I am not sure what to make of this latest post, or what the parallel you are alleging is.

To my view, there is nothing wrong with posting videos on DU. It's not spam. In point of fact, youtube does dismiss videos that are posted on high trafficked sites with an auto-play function, but DU does not autoplay videos here. Free clicking users choose if they wish to click or not. There is no 'bot' aspect involved at all.

[blondeatlast]

96. No, I never accused you of that. nt

[lyonspotter]

97. Ok, I just wanted to clarify...thank you.

I was accused of that by another poster above. Thanks.

[Generic Other]

175. I make videos and post them on DU too! Not to SPAM but because I want to share what I have done

That accusation is grossly unfair. Every single creative person on DU shares their work with the rest of us. I can't believe how belligerent people are being. For Christ's sake, I learned to make videos, posted my first political art on DU. I would have been devastated if this is the reaction I got. People's input meant a lot to me! I was proud to share links to my stuff. Excited even! So now, we are to consider this spamming? If Will Pitt posts an article he writes for Truthout here, is that spamming? What a meanspirited bunch DUers have become.

I also agree with Lyonspotter that Youtube's policy of not accurately reporting numbers sucks. Suppressing viewcounts is dishonest.

And while no one on this thread would consider it censorship, I am on Youtube probation based on violating TOS. And yes, I can take my videos elsewhere and not let the door hit me in the ass as I leave, but I choose not to. Instead, I cross post my stuff on Vimeo and Blip and other sites less arbitrary than Youtube. And I disable Youtube's ability to post ads on my videos. I don't need Youtube any more than they need me.

Now, I will also re-think whether I should ever dare share another video with DUers.

I for one understand your frustration Lyonspotter.

[lyonspotter]

176. Generic Other, thank you so much for the comment.

Where can we see your videos?

[kpominville]

102. Sorry

In that particular case they were responding to fraud on the part of the RW groups.

Apples and Oranges.

[kpominville]

103. You could sue Youtube

Thats probably the fastest way to get this settled. File and summons and complaint and force them to either admit to a technical glitch and fix it, or they will be liable for fraud and will probably settle to keep it quiet.

[lyonspotter]

105. Hmmmmmmm.... NT

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

115. Or they'd call his bluff and go to court where he'd lose. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

90. No.

1. Fraud is a crime. What youtube is doing is neither criminal, nor even immoral.

2. Fraud requires some sort of personal gain, and harm to some individual. Neither is occurring.

Youtube's open about how their view count system works. And any corrective measure that accurately reflects the view count to counter dicks who keep hitting refresh to falsely inflate their view count is a good thing.

[lyonspotter]

93. "Pron Syrup"...who exactly is doing what you claim above?

I'm not. I'm not refreshing my video 7,000 times.

You are maybe the most uncharitable poster I think I have ever come across. Why? lol...it is absolutely amazing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

112. +1

[lyonspotter]

128. Thanks for the +1, for what it is worth!

I suspect this thread is pretty buried in unrecs, LOL!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

118. Riiiiight.

[lyonspotter]

122. Left?

[lyonspotter]

140. As in...did you leave?

That would be welcomed. Take your axe to grind as well.

My hunch is that you would disagree with a thread that reads: "World peace would be grand"...

But that is just a hunch, given how disagreeable I have seen you to be on every forum...

[Electric Monk]

151. They're not laughing with you, they're laughing at you

[lyonspotter]

153. Beg your pardon?

[kpominville]

100. WRONG

1. All it takes is someone to sue them for this fraud.

2. Fraud only requires that they show harm done to the plaintiff. Purposely misreporting their viewership is obviously fraud.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone hitting refresh because that counter hasn't changed in over 24 hours.

[lyonspotter]

104. We could make the argument that...

...were this video not inhibited and went on to become a viral video as a result, the owner of the video could be entitled to sponsorship and enjoy the monetization of the video through advertisements. This impediment is, in some sense, imposing some form of personal harm (in that I could really use the money these days...you know...to eat food, pay rent, and such...lol)...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

113. There's no fraud here.

No harm has been done to the plaintiff. You might have a point if the plaintiff was paying YouTube for its services. And since YouTube's terms clearly state that they can do whatever they want with view counts, plaintiff would have some 'splainin to do about how this constituted fraud. YouTube isn't obligated to do anything for anyone.

[kpominville]

125. WRONG

There seems to be a general misconception that fraud has to be monetary in nature. That is simply wrong. They offer the service of showing hit counts and if they are purposely misrepresenting those counts they are committing fraud, period.

All it takes is someone to call them on it by suing them.

[blondeatlast]

129. Good luck on that bar exam--again. nt

[lyonspotter]

130. And your degree in law is from where? NT

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

131. FFS read the terms of service.

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service.

[lyonspotter]

132. I mean, obviously this is an important issue to you...

...if you are going around YouTube's TOS just to fortify your case. I appreciate the effort.

[lyonspotter]

142. 2000 views to this thread***

Not bad for one that is more unrec'ed than rec'ed. If I may say so.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

143. It's like watching a trainwreck.

Good stuff.

[lyonspotter]

150. Somehow, Pron Syrup, that doesn't surprise me about you.

You have been described on DU as someone who would probably like to pull the wings off a house fly. Is that also true? (The question comes to mind in the context of your comment above).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

170. You really shouldn't be getting your information from Omega Minimo.

Not that it doesn't fit.

[lyonspotter]

171. Good memory Pron...You know...

...in this strange way, I am starting to become fond of your bad attitude and smack talk. It's entertaining!

Did you used to play basketball? I can only imagine how you would behave after a dunk. LMAO.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

172. Oh puhleese.

As if OM's hackneyed logorrheaic stench isn't recognizable a mile away.

[lyonspotter]

173. LOL! I don't even know the dude....

...but I'll take your word for it. LOL!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

145. BULLSHIT. This thread has at least FIFTY THOUSAND VIEWS.

Skinner is pulling the wool over your eyes!

[lyonspotter]

146. My hunch is that Skinner doesn't care...

[lyonspotter]

148. Does Skinner have a TOS policy item...

...that admits it will remove views and be deceptive about the real amount of views a thread receives? I must have missed that one.

[blondeatlast]

152. ...

:rofl:

[lyonspotter]

161. ?

What was so funny?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

155. Also, Freemasons.

[lyonspotter]

157. I think you meant this for the Skull and Bones thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7398279&mesg_id=7398279

[blondeatlast]

164. And the Illini, er, Illumi, er, Illiinitami--right?! nt

[lyonspotter]

167. Yeah...that was sort of out of left field!

lol.

[lyonspotter]

174. Just hit...

2500!!!!! Probably closer to 50,000...........

SIKE!

[omega minimo]

158. Sounds like you been UnRecced.

:wow:

[MilesColtrane]

163. It's their sandbox. They make the rules.

You agreed to those rules when you checked the TOS, whether you read them or not.

You probably think the Unrec function on DU is censorship also.

[lyonspotter]

166. If you would read the entire thread here...

...you would have a little clearer vision of what I think, without posing the assumptions you just did.

[MilesColtrane]

168. Yeah...I'll get right on that.

[lyonspotter]

169. Feel free...

It seems a valuable thing to do, so that you don't become the 40th person to say exactly what you just said, wasting your time and that of everyone else...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

177. Wow, it looks like your precious view count was updated.

What the hell were you complaining about again? I've forgotten.

[lyonspotter]

179. Well, that the view count is actually closer...

...to about 2,000. Not 600.

But who's counting, right?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

182. Considering your frequent habit of responding multiple times to the same posts in this thread...

...I'd wager that many of those 1400 "missing" hits were you clicking your own link.

[lyonspotter]

183. Um, no...

Nice try though.

[lyonspotter]

180. Nice dig by the way!

What did you go down to...the 5th or 6th page on the General Discussion forum?

And you had to go back and check my video too! Such devotion! For that, my greatest expression of gratitude and appreciation to you, my dear Cessna Invesco Palin!

[ShamelessHussy]

178. the owners can do WHATEVER they fucking want to

according to some, but i believe it is a deceptive practice to claim a product provides a feature, that apparently misrepresents the reality of what it is supposed to represent.

but thats what a judge ruled about fox noise, the owners can lie if they want to, too.

[lyonspotter]

181. Tick tick tick...

...countdown to 3000!