Then why do they still shove Prager U down my throat? Absolutely ridiculous.
Seriously. I inevitably get all of the right-wing questionable sources as recommendations each time.
Oh but PragerU is now recognised in Florida and will be permitted in schools!
I'd hazard that YouTube consider as "authoritative sources" only right-wing, billionaire-owned news media conglomerates. Thanks, but no thanks
Lol which moron downvoted you? NO I LIKE MY BILLIONAIRE PROPAGANDA KEEP THE LIES AND OUTRAGE COMING
lol let the billionaire bootlickers downvote all they want... it's not like Lemmy upvote points have any value anyway :)
You can click on leftist content and you get random videos in the suggested videos.
You click on anything near the center or right wing: "Here are some more videos on hating women, lgbtqia+, people of color, immigrants etc... OH! Nearly forgot! Here is a video of a piece of shit guy laughing at and doxxing disabled people!"
They push you right down the fascist rabbit hole...
Don’t forget the 37 random ads interspersed throughout…
Ministry of Truth
Ahhh, post modern "there is no truth".
Just because CNN has flaws doesn't mean it's not a better source of information than "louder with crowder".
Organizations that have standards and make reasonable attempts to be accurate should be promoted over "Dave's rage blog".
As much as I despise CNN and NYtimes, I have to agree that they're miles better than many of their peers, and while flawed they're usually factually on point. I just wish they weren't as easily swayed by owners and institutions who have vested interest in which stories are run, and which aren't.
People have to realize there is not such thing as perfect. And agreeing with you is not "better". The echo-chamber is a bad thing, not a good thing.
Sources of information that have an intention of integrity and who strive to follow it are better sources than rampant unbridled partisanship and yellow-journalism. Even FoxNews (the news side not the trash side) is a better source than some liberal blog that makes no attempt to be objective at all.
It’s probably better in the long run. Extremism is linked with violence (more from the right than the left, but) and YouTube is a global platform. It’s likely they will be trying to push more moderate content that gets the facts right over sensational opinion.
One would hope but that isn't what makes them money.
Ultimately, the timidity of the advertisers is going to drive youtube towards less controversial and less polarizing content.
Witness the previous "adpocalypses" and the content policy responses.
They'd probably filter out any too harsh content too, so that we can live in our little cotton insulated world's...
I mean they'll decide what is "bad", and that's probably bad in itself.
If you're relying solely on a platform like YouTube for your information, you're not getting the full picture anyway.
Hey, you're not sneaking off to Apple news or worse bing news eh!?!
News nowadays is really a hassle.
I do use Apple News because I use Apple products. It’s a nice window into the newspapers of today.
Youtube is so fucking captured by money its absurd.
Ugh, all authoritive sources are owned by right wingers, just some are overtly stupid and other ones are vauge centerist trying to convince us problems don't exist and wishing we would stop caring about trans people.
Not the public broadcasters!
What is even the point of YouTube then?
Because it sure as hell isn't about hosting user content anymore.
I mean for makeup tutorials by all means but for news? We've seen what happens when people get their news entirely from tiny bespoke sources and it's Qanon.
YouTube shouldn't host any news or political content at all then.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It also plans to spend $1.6 million to promote the creation of news content for its shortform Shorts service.
According to Google, the new watch page experience will initially roll out on mobile in around 40 countries and will expand to its desktop and living room interfaces in the future.
Meanwhile, the Google-owned video platform is also pledging to spend $1.6 million to promote the creation of shortform Shorts news content with over 20 organizations across 10 countries.
Meta has made it clear that it doesn’t plan to actively court or promote news content on Threads.
More recently, he added that Threads “won’t proactively recommend news content to people who don’t seek it out.”
Under his leadership, X no longer shows headlines on articles shared on the platform and has dismantled the system that verified journalists.
The original article contains 498 words, the summary contains 136 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Then why do they still shove Prager U down my throat? Absolutely ridiculous.
Seriously. I inevitably get all of the right-wing questionable sources as recommendations each time.
Oh but PragerU is now recognised in Florida and will be permitted in schools!
I'd hazard that YouTube consider as "authoritative sources" only right-wing, billionaire-owned news media conglomerates. Thanks, but no thanks
Lol which moron downvoted you? NO I LIKE MY BILLIONAIRE PROPAGANDA KEEP THE LIES AND OUTRAGE COMING
lol let the billionaire bootlickers downvote all they want... it's not like Lemmy upvote points have any value anyway :)
You can click on leftist content and you get random videos in the suggested videos. You click on anything near the center or right wing: "Here are some more videos on hating women, lgbtqia+, people of color, immigrants etc... OH! Nearly forgot! Here is a video of a piece of shit guy laughing at and doxxing disabled people!"
They push you right down the fascist rabbit hole...
Don’t forget the 37 random ads interspersed throughout…
Ministry of Truth
Ahhh, post modern "there is no truth".
Just because CNN has flaws doesn't mean it's not a better source of information than "louder with crowder".
Organizations that have standards and make reasonable attempts to be accurate should be promoted over "Dave's rage blog".
As much as I despise CNN and NYtimes, I have to agree that they're miles better than many of their peers, and while flawed they're usually factually on point. I just wish they weren't as easily swayed by owners and institutions who have vested interest in which stories are run, and which aren't.
People have to realize there is not such thing as perfect. And agreeing with you is not "better". The echo-chamber is a bad thing, not a good thing.
Sources of information that have an intention of integrity and who strive to follow it are better sources than rampant unbridled partisanship and yellow-journalism. Even FoxNews (the news side not the trash side) is a better source than some liberal blog that makes no attempt to be objective at all.
It’s probably better in the long run. Extremism is linked with violence (more from the right than the left, but) and YouTube is a global platform. It’s likely they will be trying to push more moderate content that gets the facts right over sensational opinion.
One would hope but that isn't what makes them money.
Ultimately, the timidity of the advertisers is going to drive youtube towards less controversial and less polarizing content.
Witness the previous "adpocalypses" and the content policy responses.
They'd probably filter out any too harsh content too, so that we can live in our little cotton insulated world's...
I mean they'll decide what is "bad", and that's probably bad in itself.
If you're relying solely on a platform like YouTube for your information, you're not getting the full picture anyway.
Hey, you're not sneaking off to Apple news or worse bing news eh!?!
News nowadays is really a hassle.
I do use Apple News because I use Apple products. It’s a nice window into the newspapers of today.
Youtube is so fucking captured by money its absurd.
Ugh, all authoritive sources are owned by right wingers, just some are overtly stupid and other ones are vauge centerist trying to convince us problems don't exist and wishing we would stop caring about trans people.
Not the public broadcasters!
What is even the point of YouTube then?
Because it sure as hell isn't about hosting user content anymore.
I mean for makeup tutorials by all means but for news? We've seen what happens when people get their news entirely from tiny bespoke sources and it's Qanon.
YouTube shouldn't host any news or political content at all then.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It also plans to spend $1.6 million to promote the creation of news content for its shortform Shorts service.
According to Google, the new watch page experience will initially roll out on mobile in around 40 countries and will expand to its desktop and living room interfaces in the future.
Meanwhile, the Google-owned video platform is also pledging to spend $1.6 million to promote the creation of shortform Shorts news content with over 20 organizations across 10 countries.
Meta has made it clear that it doesn’t plan to actively court or promote news content on Threads.
More recently, he added that Threads “won’t proactively recommend news content to people who don’t seek it out.”
Under his leadership, X no longer shows headlines on articles shared on the platform and has dismantled the system that verified journalists.
The original article contains 498 words, the summary contains 136 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!