He's so full of shit, his eyes -have- to be brown.

Oddities in search do -not- demonstrate intent. They demonstrate oddities in search routines, nothing more, nothing less. You need more evidence to support a claim that they're out to get you.

Even so, youtube -is- a company (and not the government) and has every right to exercise some control over their content. Just because they're the largest video site, doesn't mean they're the only one. There are dozens of alternatives if you don't like how they operate.

He messed up the quote at the beginning, it's "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately", uttered by Ben Franklin.

He's got a good point. I think that's the reason people at MIT created http://youtomb.mit.edu/.

Totally agree Stormsinger,

God DAMN I hate when people think Freedom of Speech applies to anything but the government NOT passing a law concerning what you can or cannot say. You're plastering your shit all over Youtube and can't be bothered to Google or check Wikipedia before making yourself look like a arse?

I really blew a gasket when he babbled on about Youtube ratings meaning quality, and not some childish popularity contest. Naive AND stupid, a dangerous mix...

>> ^Stormsinger:
He's so full of shit, his eyes -have- to be brown.
Oddities in search do -not- demonstrate intent. They demonstrate oddities in search routines, nothing more, nothing less. You need more evidence to support a claim that they're out to get you.
Even so, youtube -is- a company (and not the government) and has every right to exercise some control over their content. Just because they're the largest video site, doesn't mean they're the only one. There are dozens of alternatives if you don't like how they operate.

Popularity == quality, even on the sift. There is nothing else we can measure, so it's the closest we got.

Are you (SS, PB) saying that you ignore user ratings when shopping online? To dismiss the value of a user rating/review system seems a bit foolish. Ratings are not the final word, but they can be a useful guide.

He did not say, or even imply that youtube doesn't have the right to do whatever they want...in fact he explicitly stated that they have that right.

That's not the point of the video. It's a warning to us, as consumers, and to YT/Google as providers that there are people paying attention and something smells fishy.

It's good to comprehend the thing you're criticizing, before you make yourself look like an arse.

It's like SS and PB didn't even watch the video... He was very clear that YouTube is not bound by freedom of speech and that they have every right to do what they want. He says that they do that to the cost of their corporate image, which is absolutely true - people will look upon them less favorably the more they negatively affect the users.

He makes a good point, even though a corporation has the right to remove videos, we have to be vigilant to make sure we are not watching only what that corporation wants us to see.

Wrist-slittingly unwatchable.

Look up brevity in the dictionary and get back to me.

>> ^dirtythirtyix:
He did not say, or even imply that youtube doesn't have the right to do whatever they want...in fact he explicitly stated that they have that right.


Actually, he spent the first 5 or so minutes of the video doing exactly that. I am not going to watch the rest of the video when he quite eloquently implies straight off that Youtube is infringing on Freedom of Speech and how everyone must band together to stop "them". If he falls back later on in his freakishly long butt-hurt rant rambling, then that just means he's a poor public speaker. Should get his shit straight and in order before posting. Only sexy beasts like myself can do that.

I was going to respond, but Payback already said it.

No, I didn't watch the whole thing...just the first few minutes. By that time I was heartily unimpressed with both his content and his style.

If a video-maker has a point to make, it behooves him to make it clearly...and if he doesn't, then why is he wasting my time with his silly video rant?

I tried to enjoy this, but... man, is there a *boring channel? Fuck. I'm sure whatever he has to say is brilliant or whatever, but, fuck, discriminate about what makes it into your video and doesn't! I refuse to listen to any "truth" if it's not going to be presented in a halfway decent platform. This guy isn't even trying.

No vote.

>> ^blankfist:
I refuse to listen to any "truth" if it's not going to be presented in a halfway decent platform.
No vote.


As a generalizing statement that's probably one of the most ignorant things I have read in a long time.

Although, pertaining to this video, I'm inclined to agree.

Well if he is so consernd about getting his message about he can upload it to other sites , allso the irony in saying its contrlled and yet this video is on you tube .

Regardless of what goggle did to you tube or goggle fact is u can acess other services


and yeah this guy is tenable at video presentation.

And, why wouldn't he collect evidence when this massive youtube/google coverup was supposed to have occurred? Now there are nearly 300,000 hits for "youtube vs the users" and 10 pages of results on youtube alone. He obviously owns a camera, it wouldn't have been hard to point that at his screen.