Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "YouTube Just Demonetized Half My Channel" video.

  1. Left vs Right, originating from republicans (as in literally supporters of republics) vs royalists has come to refer more broadly to collective, democratic power VS hierarchical, establishment power. If someone's not a real populist, they're not a leftist by definition, nor are you if you support mega-corps in an effective oligarchy. Even if you use the twisted economic version of boiling the whole thing down to communism vs capitalism (which you REALLY shouldn't) the establishment Dems and the corporate media are still way far right. While we're on the subject of definitions "liberal" means "open to new ideas and ways of doing things &/or pro freedom" so the Hillary camp isn't that either. (I know this all seems pedantic, but if we allow politicians to constantly redefine political terms, they become meaningless and all discussion devolves into screaming empty buzzwords at each other, while they get to do whatever they want) Corporatist, oligarch, neo-liberal, neo-conservative, right wing, or hell, regressive (which as a parallel of "progressive" has come to mean someone who pretends to be about progress while taking us backwards), all are much better descriptors of those like Hillary. What YouTube is actually doing, at the behest of advertisers (who are used to their dollars buying control of the public narrative) and old media (who want to continue to exist despite people not liking to watch their content anymore), is trying to crack down on all alternative media (regardless of political slant) to make way for the giant media conglomerates to step in and make YouTube the new cable TV. (I can dig up specific companies and related agendas for examples if needed) It's all about power and money, as usual, and to be honest, I'm surprised they didn't hit this channel sooner.
    6
  2. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right. There's a good chance what's going on behind the scenes does break laws designed to protect competition and prevent collusion, but good luck getting the hard evidence to prove it.
    6
  3. It's about getting public opinion back under the sway of corporate media...I've been following this closely since the beginning, and all evidence points to it being the TV media conglomerates, corporate advertisers, and (with an unclear amount of coercion/collusion) YouTube working to change the content on the site. I haven't seen anything pointing to involvement outside of that, though I'm sure the CIA approves, despite likely not needing or having any involvement.
    4
  4. Oh they came for progressives LONG before they hit this channel. It's surprising this one got this far without getting hit. But yeah, not corporate content is getting targeted pretty heavily (with some others as a cover story and for 2ndary motives)
    3
  5. Depends....creating a site that can overtake it in it's current form...difficult. But if too much content is almost entirely Patreon supported, people are going to just start ad-blocking the site again just to spite YouTube. It was content creators' pleas that got people to turn adblock off in the first place, and if they're getting too hurt, and enough people REALLY want to see YouTube collapse, they'll go right ahead and turn it back on. It's not quite to the point where hurting YouTube would be worth the harm to content creators (ideally it'd be through a formal boycott, after alternatives are better off, and content creators are even more Patreon supported) so I don't do it or recommend it....YET.
    3
  6. When your goals generally run contrary to the people and you look at everything as a zero-sum game, that's not an option, sadly.
    3
  7. Not to mention, an early demonetization kills nearly all the ad revenue from the video before the review can be completed.
    2