Talk:YouTube/Archive1
False Flagging Section[edit]
Is it really necessary to have a section devoted to crying about people voting videos you agree with 1 star? Even if they're doing it in a way that is against the terms of service? It isn't notable, and it isn't relevant. Web 21:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I mentioned scientific and religious videos, so it's not a case of being unhappy that my personal causes are being downmarked. I'd be just as pissed if atheists automatically downmarked or flagged religious videos just because they're talking about spiderman in the sky. It's more about a demonstrable censorship issue with YouTube. Revert away if you think it's not fitting in with the article, but it seems valid to me. --Concernedresident 21:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's the most relevant part of the article... ħuman
23:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's the most relevant part of the article... ħuman
- I mentioned scientific and religious videos, so it's not a case of being unhappy that my personal causes are being downmarked. I'd be just as pissed if atheists automatically downmarked or flagged religious videos just because they're talking about spiderman in the sky. It's more about a demonstrable censorship issue with YouTube. Revert away if you think it's not fitting in with the article, but it seems valid to me. --Concernedresident 21:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Haven for cranks[edit]
Shouldn't we mention this? I so WAY too many videos of celebrities "admitting" the Illuminati exists. — Unsigned, by: TemplarJLS / talk / contribs
- That would be like saying the earth is a haven for cranks. Everybody's experiences vary. Nullahnung (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Umm...[edit]
Why is mentioning without elaboration that YT is mostly pron-free NSFW? PacWalker 23:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
On mission?[edit]
Hey gang. I really don't see the point of this article. Please enlighten me. Thank you. Rand0 (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Problems with the YouTube Community[edit]
The debate, drama, or lets be honest flamewar part of YouTube is what explains why people bring that up in this article. Seriously just type "feminism", "atheist", "SJW", or even just "response video", and you'll understand how ridiculous YouTube can be. Sure, yes a lot of YouTube is cat videos, but once you get into the flamewar side of things, you get into flagmodding, mass downvoting, channels that exist to bully other small ones out of existence, etc. It's a horrible forum for debate,
The minute you're to the left of Chuck Woolery you will be comment-bombed. You get called "cuck", "mangina", "SJW", "libtard", "regressive", or "regressive leftist". And those people will swear they are Rational (TM) LogicBros and feature you in X gets "Pwned" videos. I'm speaking from seeing this happen to countless small channels.
Thank God! Thanks the Gods above I am out of that hellhole. It's a perfect example of how honest "debate" can't happen without the civility and the principle of charity. Caquilino (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't that much the same as happens on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Reddit or any other "community" (i.e. social media platform) which covers a broad spectrum of views & has some capacity for lynch mob behaviour? Wëäŝëïöïď
Methinks it is a Weasel 11:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say we have our fair share of drama here as well. However, I am happy to report that it is generally nowhere near as bad as on YouTube.
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say we have our fair share of drama here as well. However, I am happy to report that it is generally nowhere near as bad as on YouTube.
Indicator?[edit]
If social media is any indicator, right now Hillary is running a tear-jerker ad that has top placement in Youtube. It has 22k likes to 36k dislikes. We'll see Wednesday morning if that ad money was well spent. nobs 19:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Upon my viewing, it has 800K view and 23K likes and 37.5K dislikes. I have downloaded the video just in case. ;-) —€h33s3βurg3rF@€3
(talk • stalk) 19:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Wow. Its up up to 1.3 million/27k up 44k down (pay attention to our timestamps here). nobs 21:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Final tally 4,387,186 views, 39,460 up, 63,996 down, roughly a 40/60 breakdown. Interesting, most closing night polls have a 47/43 split, with 10% uncommitted to either Hillary or Trump. In the 10 presidential elections I've watched, I can never remember such a larger group uncommitted to either, even in 3-way contests. nobs 18:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Copycatting[edit]
No mention of the cat-herding video? — Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs Oct 14 2010, sometime in the evening.
Documentaries[edit]
Documentaries on YouTube for Conspiracy theories. There are a lot of them. What are the characteristics of them? I've seen some for Chemtrails and secret societies and secrets of America, and have seen quotes, analysis of symbols, etc.
Quotes by actual experts that say conspiracy theories like chemtrails and Statue of Liberty being Lucifer is true. Measurements, symbolism, etc.
So... Wwhy do we just dismiss these videos? You know, the quotes by actual experts saying chemtrails are real are in those videos for example. — Unsigned, by: 70.210.134.238 / talk / contribs