Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "Thrand Channel Removed! Community! LOCK SHIELDS!" video.

  1. Why? Because he's competition for shows like "Deadliest Warrior". Experimental archeology like this has been on TV for YEARS and no-one had a problem with it. This whole Adpocalypse started with advertisers wanting to get control of the political narrative back in their hands by the influence their ad dollars have over news media and old news media in a downward spiral as they lost all semblance of credibility and people migrated elsewhere to get their news. The media companies are huge conglomerates that do more than news, however, and quickly realized that their other content was loosing viewers to the internet and further pressured youtube to clear out competing content so they could move in and get more eyes on their content and more ad dollars in their pockets. This is just the next step. Expect to see more.
    25
  2. Liberal and Conservative channels were both targeted at the start of this. TYT was likely spared just because YouTube feared their size (or they've already sold out. Haven't watched them in long enough to say). The real reason is corporatism. Advertisers want their ad dollars to buy influence over the news again and TV channel conglomerates want to clear out their competition. These channels we watch compete with the "History" channel and specifically shows like "Deadliest Warrior". This is how companies act when they have the power to seriously influence the market on a large enough scale.
    7
  3. Corporate market fixing. YouTube is working with TV media conglomerates to clear out content that competes with theirs. This whole adpocolypse thing started with media conglomerates and huge corporations getting together to force YouTube to serve there interests above all others, and YouTube seems quite happy to go along with this BS plan.
    7
  4. You want the real reasons, or their cover story, because those are very different answers. The real reason is that the historical YouTube channels we watch kick the pants off of the History Channel, and the huge media conglomerates (like the one that own that) want to turn YouTube into cable TV 2.0
    5
  5. That's the "official" reason, yes, and it is generally better to assume incompetence. Unfortunately it just doesn't fit the string of events, the timing, the specific policies they've made, or consistently who they've allowed through the system. It also doesn't fit that there has been NO boycott of a product or company because of showing up on a truly hate-filled video (because people know it's a fallible bot and can chock it up to the ad being targeted at THEM, not the content) and there were already pretty effective safeguards that greatly limited that before. Also, the "issue" of occasionally running into a misplaced ad isn't a new thing at all, but suddenly it was a problem, and with companies you wouldn't expect to be super conscious about their image. For example, Walmart was one of the early boycotters, but they're not really known for being super conscious about ethical behavior. They are, however, well known for liking trade deals, and when the TPP ran into significant problems and a lot of the electorate (on BOTH "sides") in the US wouldn't quiet down about their outrage at the corporate establishment, we got this boycott that started with advertisers and some 2-bit tabloid hit-pieces no one cared about, quickly followed by the corporate media (which is hemorrhaging viewers, due to a justifiable lack of public confidence). The huge conglomerates http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-television/ that control them then realized their success with this and are broadening their attacks to include the competition for their other shows. You're right that this started with news media, but it's not about actual fake news, but that independent news isn't influenced by direct ad dollars like TV stations are and so doesn't tow the established corporate narrative. Keep in mind that one of the "news" channels on TV (which YouTube started pushing just a few months after the crackdown on independent media) has been consistently found to have their viewers be less informed than those who watch no news in all and HAS has had consumers boycott companies that advertise with them due to offensive content in their overt propaganda, so the idea that YouTube is trying to actually be responsible about tone and accuracy doesn't fit their actions.
    1