Why do people believe Youtube is consciously shifting away from indie creators?

A

Acerthorn

Loving YTtalk

That video makes it clear that Belle Delphine's ban from Youtube is not an example of Youtube's systemic shift to bury independent content creators in order to facilitate a transition to legacy and more conventional media. However, he makes it clear that he does indeed believe that Youtube is planning on doing this, only disagreeing with this one specific instance.

I'd like to know ... what evidence does he and those who think like him have to support this conspiracy theory? I did several google searches looking for evidence, phrasing my question in several different ways, and I was unable to find a single article published this year that purported to address this alleged conspiracy.

Is there any definitive and comprehensive source - written article or video alike - that actually goes into detail listing all the objective evidence that independent content creators are being purposefully buried by Youtube employees in favor of legacy media? Just like with Donald Trump's claims of election fraud, I refuse to believe such a conspiracy theory until I see evidence for it ... and no, simply having some disgruntled youtube channels with literally hundreds of thousands of subscribers complain because they don't have literally millions of subscribers like they think they deserve does not count as evidence.
 
So far, I have only seen YouTube turning their backs to ''edgy'' creators. I don't necessarily believe all of them are fairly considered edgy, but with politics and cancel trends these days, people are offended by everything. > bad business.

I do think YouTube is consciously shifting away from certain types of indie creators. Or at least those posing a risk to add revenue income. Majority of indie creators are likely to be fine.
 
Possibly the real issue is YouTube's algorithm simply shifting its promotions around. You get your moment in the Sun and then someone else does. If you can capitalize on your moment, great. If not, well, you at least got a moment when 99.99% of channels don't. Possibly YouTube wants to give lots of channels a boost and then expects you to find another way to boost yourself further. Having a ton of new subscribers should make it easier to do collaborations with bigger channels and that can take you to the next level.

But like anything to do with YouTube, it is just a guess.
 
Neither of you seem to understand the OP.

I wasn't asking for your personal opinion on whether this conspiracy theory has any leg to it. I was asking for a compilation of evidence offered by those who believe the conspiracy, regardless of whether you believe it or whether you find any of the evidence to be persuasive.

Like, the guy in the OP said that Youtube's shift to legacy media is an "indisputable fact," and that it has happened to him personally. Since he obviously isn't going to make his own video explaining what he means by that, I want to know what exactly is causing people like him to think this way. Remember that calling something an "indisputable fact" is setting a rather high bar for oneself. So I assume he has some actual evidence for it.

I'd like to see this evidence.

And I don't care if you think the way he does or not.
 
By trying to say an opinion is an indisputable fact you leave very little room for discussion. Whoever is making the claim needs to provide evidence. Otherwise they are just whining.

I have not seen that YT is turning away from small creators, or bad taste channels. They are just interested in advertiser dollars. Colbert and Trevor Noah deliver much more ad revenue than my channel. YT would love for all of us to have millions of subs, but they know it won't happen.

The bad taste channels may have a lot of views but advertisers do not want to be associated with them. Again, not a conspiracy, just free enterprise.
 
This is really odd.

Acerthorn said:
Neither of you seem to understand the OP.
Click to expand...

What?! YOU are the OP! Then again, maybe you don't know what OP actually stands for. That is "original poster".

I wasn't asking for your personal opinion on whether this conspiracy theory has any leg to it. I was asking for a compilation of evidence offered by those who believe the conspiracy, regardless of whether you believe it or whether you find any of the evidence to be persuasive.
Click to expand...

Tito Tims is right. You're essentially a conspiracy nut looking for OTHERS to provide you proof that your conspiracy is true.
 
Jack Decker said:
What?! YOU are the OP! Then again, maybe you don't know what OP actually stands for. That is "original poster".
Click to expand...
No, you're the one who doesn't understand what OP stands for. It can stand for "original poster," but it can also stand for "original post." You're supposed to use context to know one is meant at any given point in time.

  1. The OP for this thread is Acerthorn.
  2. The OP for this thread was posted on December 5, 2020 and begins with the phrase "That video makes it clear that Belle Delphine's ..."

BOTH of those two sentences are equally valid and make equal amounts of sense!

Just like how, when somebody says the word "read" in writing you're supposed to use context to know whether it's present/future tense (e.g. "I'm about to read this book") or past tense (e.g. "I already read this book"). It's called "using context to tell the difference" and if you're incapable of doing that, you're retarded.
 
Acerthorn said:
No, you're the one who doesn't understand what OP stands for. It can stand for "original poster," but it can also stand for "original post."
Click to expand...

In either case, you're still wrong. You gave a link to a video in the original post of this thread. That video is NOT the original poster or the original post of this thread. That's you and yours.

The OP for this thread was posted on December 5, 2020 and begins with the phrase "That video makes it clear that Belle Delphine's ..."
Click to expand...

That OP is YOU. Look at the left side bar next to that post. That's YOU.

It's called "using context to tell the difference" and if you're incapable of doing that, you're retarded.
Click to expand...

It is called understanding terminology which clearly you do not. Not that I woud expect a conspiracy nut who wants others to prove their conspiracy true would understand that.
 
OP this whole thing feels like you're just looking to fight. Like everyone else said, there's no indisputable facts in anything you said. For reference, an indisputable fact is something like "The Lakers won the NBA championship this past season". Something that can be proven with hard evidence. What you're talking about has no substantial evidence. People have always thought this. This is a bit of a deviation from your original point, but people have always had the mentality that YouTube doesn't care about smaller or indie creators. YouTube just wants money. It's a business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top