From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Your finest source of plastic cylinders.
Their ass to your brain
Icon youtube.svg
Like and subscribe

YouTube is yet another Google cash-cow the Internet's foremost repository of videos that end up as TV news filler items. Credited as one of the driving forces of Web 2.0, it makes readily available many music videos, copyright-infringing clips from TV shows and movies, annoying would-be music or comedy acts, random people playing video games for twenty minutes (the most popular of which rarely actually plays games anymore), and stupid home videos — which for some reason received more than ten million downloads.

YouTube allows for free expression in discussion of these videos, where people can either post their own video in reply or leave a comment under it. But if you are looking for meaningful exchange of ideas, there are a few problems:

  1. Video uploaders may remove certain comments, or disable comments altogether, if they don't like the ones they are getting. (Is this really a problem, though? See #2 below.)
  2. Most of the comments are by total fuckwads and credulous morons (to the point that often people post comments about how many comments will be of the same shitty meme).
  3. Some commenters don't even read the refutations you give them, and keep rambling on about what you refuted three comments ago. God forbid they actually learn something.
  4. Popular videos attract high numbers of comments, leading to very low signal-to-noise ratios.
  5. Up until late 2013, serious discussion of videos was also hampered by the technical characteristics of the system itself: a 500 character limit and a clumsy reading interface, lacking crucial 1980s innovations such as proper threads. It's too soon to say whether the established commenting culture will be changed by the merger with Google+, but since YouTube also has next to no moderation, it's unlikely.
  6. Sturgeon's Law.

As well as posting LOL comments, registered users can upvote and downvote videos, which can serve as an indication of the quality popularity of any given video—comparable to movie ratings. Who but the most die-hard zombie fan will stay up until 4am in order to watch a highly down-voted movie? The voting system is somewhat subjective, since viewers can vote based purely on personal tastes or support of claims/beliefs made in a video. It's mobocracy which obviously breaks down when users aren't as clever and attractive as you!

As it is generally free of pornography, YouTube is technically not really part of the Internet.

Censorship of videos through false flagging and vote bots[edit]

YouTube provides two methods by which users can reduce the visibility (and presumably the popularity) of videos. The first is to flag it as being unsuitable for minors, since a sufficient number of "votes" will hide the video from everyone except registered users of an appropriate age. The second approach is to vote-down a video (using the voting system mentioned earlier in this article), either manually through a conspiracy of users or by using a vote bot, which is typically a script that allows a single person to register a large number of votes over multiple videos.[1] It's kind of like being able to stuff the ballot box. Vote botting has a more pronounced effect on smaller videos, since there are likely to be fewer genuine votes to counteract the effects of the vote botting.

Some authors respond to the problem of vote bots by asking their viewers to register votes to counteract the effects of vote botting. This approach could arguably result in mundane videos being voted-up simply because people agree with the views of the author.

Spotting "vote-botting"[edit]

A vote-bot is a script which runs by a computer (or several, or possibly even ones that have been hijacked) and thus has very predictable behavior. In March 2008, YouTube released Insight, an analytical tool for YouTube accounts to track the views of their videos. This has been used with quite high success in spotting the predictable activity of a bot. Specifically, when a vote-bot script executes, it tends to operate only for a short period of time - perhaps a few hours to a day at most - registering dozens, if not hundreds of accounts. All these accounts will then "watch" a selected video and give it an up vote or possibly a down vote, although it's not sure how common this kind of "up-voting" is. Insight then allows a user to view if this has happened as the graphical data produced will show a large, clear spike in the number of votes, well above the normal baseline of voting activity, for the duration of the script's execution. A corresponding spike, equally above the baseline, in the record of down votes will also appear. These spikes are usually many, many times above the baseline activity and are usually much higher than any "natural" spikes.[note 1]

The "hotspots" option, which tracks how much of the video, and what parts of the video, has been watched may also show a notable dip at the beginning due to the bot being there only to register the vote and not actually watching the video. However, this would only be expected on videos with viewing figures that are small relative to the vote-bot.

YouTube as a debate forum[edit]

A typical YouTube discussion
(CC-BY-NC Randall Munroe)

Many YouTubers create videos expressing a particular political or religious viewpoint. These are then answered by others expressing contrary viewpoints—each gathering their own band of vociferous followers in various levels of coherent text. Notwithstanding the intensity of debates within the YouTube medium, it is unlikely that these debates have much (or indeed any) influence on the outside world, unless they happen to go viral.

A number of people who actually bother to vote and leave comments on YouTube, however, seem to lean toward the political hard-right (see section below). For example, YouTube has become one of the most popular outlets for Austrian School advocates to use to reach the "sheeple", such is the case with and countless other libertarian advocates.

A haven for bigots[edit]

YouTube also has an unchecked wave of white nationalists, MRAs, homophobes, and the occasional genuinely fascist sympathizers[2] who, when they're called out on their bigotry, play the "persecution" card in the comments section without much blowback.[3] One can post videos bashing feminism or moaning about "Reverse black on white crime" and get a huge percentage of "like" votes. Videos advocating any viewpoint that deviates from the Paulbot standard (unless part of an organized channel) tend to be voted down en masse.

Bizarrely enough it is not uncommon to see these positions combined with anti-theism, as New Atheism is fairly popular on the site. Then again, YouTube users aren't one monolithic group, and fundamentalists aren't exactly uncommon either.


Numerous other websites now host free video content, often specified around themes. There's Tangle (aka. GodTube), a Christian-themed video site[4] and PopModal, the Republican (or "pro-American") answer to YouTube,[5][6] a whole slew of pornographic YouTube clones (RedTube, YouPorn, Pornotube, etc.)[note 2] and dozens more that should really be mentioned but would take a while to track down. It's interesting to note how many of these sites (other than the porn ones) actually just stream YouTube's content; clearly bandwidth and server space are totally non-partisan.

Conspiracy theorists[edit]

Conspiracy theorists, not being able to get their ideas on the mainstream media, rely on YouTube to get their ideas to the world. The problem is their videos are usually well received and people debunking these theories are spread few and far between. If you look at most of their videos, their titles are usually misleading. For example, if it says "KAY PERRY AMITS SHE SOLD HER SOUL TO THE DEVIL", the speech is usually taken out of context. If it shows something like "Scientists expose chemtrails", then the speeches are usually edited, cut and manipulated.[7]

Many titles are deliberately misleading on YouTube, in that it gets the author more hits. A conspiracy theorist can make a video titles "BARACK OBAMA TOLD BY THE ILLUMINATI ABOUT CHEMTRAILS - CAUGHT ON TAPE", and when you click it, you get a series of out of context news reports, portions of alleged documents, etc. with nothing to do with the title. [8]

A Conspiracy Theorists reveals... Youtube is the Illuminati[edit]

Yep, they finally ran out of stuff to cry about, and now they're attacking their own haven.[9] Needless to say, YouTube has so many videos about the Illuminati, it's hard to comprehend people even believe this. Wouldn't they, er... remove the videos? Or better yet, close down YouTube and get rid of the entire problem?[note 3] Or even better, why would they let something like YouTube be created in the first place?

All in all, if you see a movie with yellow subtitles, a specific, eerie atmosphere and extremely ambiguous content which doesn't seem to be apparent at first glance, you should probably hit X in the upper-right corner of your screen to avoid wasting your time, or worse, losing brain matter.

Copyright strikes[edit]

YouTube has become somewhat infamous for being extremely plaintiff friendly on the issue of copyright strikes. YouTube seems to have no idea what fair use is, as multiple videos that fall under it are taken down because of "copyright infringement", while in reality, it is often legal. Sometimes, it can deeply affect channels, especially because of the infamous "three strikes you're out" rule. This shows the possibility that following three copyright strikes, your entire channel can be deleted. Another issue is that sometimes the videos are taken down under this system, even if the original creator isn't complaining! Sometimes, they just automatically take it down. Channels such as H3H3 Productions and I Hate Everything have come close to destruction because of this terrible system with a copyright strike reminiscent of Fahrenheit 451. And just about everyone knows this. Usually, it's quite clear that the masses support the victim of the strike, but YouTube has made it quite clear that they don't care. And no, just reuploading someone else's video is not fair use, but reactions and reviews are. In spite of those, H3H3 was struck for a reaction video, and I Hate Everything for a review video. These are just the more famous examples. This happens all the time, and often to new and small channels. This system is destroying YouTube and its community.


Generation I (14 Feb 2005 – 2007)[edit]

The first generation of YouTube saw it being no more than a video storing site where people shared nothing but garbage and a few memes. However, after a while, this ended for the organization of the later generations. Just about everyone were one-hit wonders, and subscriber count really didn't matter. Best defined by the keyboard cat.

Generation II (2007 – 14 Mar 2012)[edit]

The second generation saw channels that had a schedule and an established purpose come to the forefront of YouTube. Best defined by Smosh, which was the most popular channel thrice in its history.

Generation III (14 Mar 2012 – 17 Jan 2017)[edit]

In 2012, YouTube changed from a click-based system to a watch time-based system. This caused several animation, music, and comedy short channels to stagnate, and caused a surge in the popularity of watching someone else play a video game for 20 minutes. Essentially, it killed the semi-quality content of Generation II. It also caused a surge in the popularity of a game where you can build whatever you late 90s graphics.[11] Best defined by PewDiePie.

Generation IV (17 Jan 2017 – )[edit]

Quality declined further following the cancellation of Vine. The Viners migrated en masse to YouTube, and have begun to overthrow the previous three generations. While their business strategies are smart, 4th Gen. YouTubers tend to be pretty stupid. Best defined by Jake and Logan Paul.


Advertisers are leaving en masse due to their ads being shown on videos by extremists,[note 4] leading to them being allowed to boycott vague categories of content producers as of April 2017. This has proven a problem as many content creators were just scraping by before the adpocalypse, and this has caused revenue to decline for some users by up to 80%. Patreon has soared as a result in the fanbase's attempt to keep channels up... but then, YouTube started to ban users from posting Patreon links. The proposed mass move to the more creator friendly Vidme (which is to YouTube as Voat is to Reddit) has been slower than many hoped.

In an effort to counteract this, Google introduced a new bot to search for advertiser-unfriendly content. The bot was designed to "learn from its mistakes": it flags tons of videos, than learns from creator sending in appeals and improves its algorithm thusly. The problem with this is that one can only send in an appeal if the video got 1000 views in the last week- so if it's an old video or from a smaller channel, you're SOL.[12] As a result of this, the bot isn't learning from its mistakes, since it thinks that it did it right when it isn't appealed.

See also[edit]

External links[edit]


  1. Natural spikes in activity are, of course, expected to happen with YouTube videos (say, if the video was posted to a popular blog and its views were boosted for a day or two) but these aren't usually accompanied with a corresponding spike in the actual rating.
  2. Like you didn't already know that, you sick little monkey.
  3. Ah, but if they remove the videos, then people would get suspicious, wouldn't they?
  4. This is why we can't have nice things.