We were just minding our own business and the local social media-driven news channel relayed the following sob story.
When you base your arguments on a widely-distributed, yet stupid concept, you’re only left to react stupidly. It’s even more insidious when we’re kinda’ being told it’s something stupid they may or may not do even though anyone with eyes knows they’re already doing it.
Just recently, it was acknowledged that despite demonizing those who were calling out geoengineering as conspiracy theorists, so-called scientists KNOW the Sun is cooling but they want to stop warming?
There’s some very strange global warming going on these days. We’ve been told for decades that global warming would be making summers hotter and longer by now, that the Arctic would be ice-free and the polar bears would all starve, that global warming would make us fatter and that hundreds of thousands of species would be extinct by now. Al Gore even told us that Mount Kilimanjaro would be snow-free by 2016 and that it would be ‘the point of no return‘.
None of Al’s prophecies came true. Indeed, none of the claims that the establishment media have been bombarding us with for twenty years with regard to anthropogenic (man-made) climate change have come true. Not one.
What is occurring, though, is the number of extreme cold weather events is rising sharply around the world.
— XYZ, 1/18/17
Despite almost every hysterical climate prediction being eventually proven wrong meaning inconvenient, previously hyped numbers and conclusions having to be revised…
A new study published in a peer-reviewed journal finds that climate models exaggerate the global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. If these findings hold true, it’s huge news. No wonder the mainstream press is ignoring it.
— Investors Business Daily, 4/25/18
… “deniers” are targeted and gullible youth are engaged in even more feel-good activities that will help “save the planet”, even though a second grader with some semblance of untainted common sense would ask why we’d need to stop the world from heating up when the same scientists are telling us the Sun is cooling as it cyclically has for centuries.
Propelling aerosols into the upper atmosphere or pumping carbon dioxide into the deep ocean are just two schemes that have been proposed to repair the Earth’s climate through geo-engineering. Geo-engineering proposals for mitigating climate change continue to proliferate without being tested. It is time to select and assess the most promising ideas according to efﬁcacy, cost, all aspects of risk and, importantly, their rate of mitigation.
— Philip W. Boyd, University of Tasmania
Or does it all depend on what your definition of the word “test” is?
There must be more to it as federal officials (and those dependent on massive taxpayer grants) act as though climate engineering is something we must try even though all one need do is look up and see that “stratospheric aerosol injection” is not only happening today, but has been happening for years without the consent of the American people: you know, those susceptible to the toxic chemicals that eventually fall to Earth.
But also listen to people like Harvard’s David Keith, who sounds eerily like Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber, who believed deception in getting what he wanted was worth blaming on the “stupidity of the American people”. Being intentionally uninformed for a greater good is what these academic arrogants deem “stupidity”.
Imagine how many of these “but what if we don’t” academics and federal government employees could be locked up for intentionally causing physical harm to an untold amount of Americans, let alone those affected outside our borders, if it were to be determined that they took it upon themselves to spray the sky with deadly aerosols, blowing off the potential for illness and unknown “side effects” (floods, fires, mudslides, drought, etc.) to weather patterns worldwide.
Again, when debating anyone over anything “global warming”, the ONE obvious contributing factor they never bring up is the cooling Sun.
A downturn in the solar cycle is referred to as a Grand Solar Minimum. The obsessions of the current establishment, such as ‘sustainability’ and ‘green energy’, will become old gods which no-one pays attention to. The academics associated with the current order will be discredited.
— XYZ, 9/24/17
Imagine how many federal contractors who create and supply the aerosols would be in the crosshairs of makework class action attorneys whose first question would be “Did you deem it unnecessary to inform the American people that you were going to do this before you did it?”
Common courtesy notwithstanding, the next time many of you equipped with a frame of reference (of more than just a couple of recent awareness years) remember the weather at this time of year not being like it is today, ask yourself what you would say to someone who believed they could play God and unknown side effects were something THEY were willing to risk even if it also risked the health of you and your family without your consent or knowledge?
How many of you went to work in the days after the last presidential election and attended an employee meeting lamenting a result most didn’t anticipate? Personally, I can’t remember one instance or being told by anyone who worked for a company where such happened.
But if you work for a big website, you must assume you’re not only among the smartest, most well-informed people on the planet, but you also have to tolerate those who have the sheer stupidity to not see things the way you do.
You are “Googley”.
“Personal views” and “values” they can act upon….
For over 20 years, everyone at Google has been able to freely express their opinions at these meetings. Nothing was said at that meeting, or any other meeting, to suggest that any political bias ever influences the way we build or operate our products.
Only someone who assumed the video wasn’t watched would formally issue such bullshit.
To the contrary, our products are built for everyone, and we design them with extraordinary care to be a trustworthy source of information for everyone, without regard to political viewpoint.
— Google spokesperson
See for yourself if that’s really how things went down….
Okay, time for a “hug”.
The hubris: they actually record their public whine-fests, label them “confidential” because they’re too important for simple Americans to comprehend, they’re #snowflake cowards, and these are valuable enough for the privileged “Googlers” to view on demand: probably for therapeutic reassurance (with a joint or two).
Co-founder Sergey Brin can be heard comparing Trump supporters to fascists and extremists. Brin argues that like other extremists, Trump voters were motivated by “boredom,” which he says in the past led to fascism and communism.
VP for Global Affairs Kent Walker argues that supporters of populist causes like the Trump campaign are motivated by “fear, xenophobia, hatred, and a desire for answers that may or may not be there.”
— Breitbart, 9/12/18
One would think Soviet-born Brin would appreciate the perils of forced group-think and enforcement, but like too many who immigrate here to take advantage of our freedoms, he ultimately believes our nation should resemble the #shithole his family fled.
While my initial response to government regulation is negative, Google’s liberal elitist influence on the American people (especially impressionable young people) is no longer something that should be brushed off as incidental.
Google is facing renewed controversy over its alleged intolerance toward conservatives at the company, after a class action lawsuit filed by former engineer James Damore disclosed almost 100 pages of screen shots of internal communications in which employees discuss sensitive political issues.
Screenshots of internal communications reveal numerous employees appearing to support the idea of being intolerant toward certain points of view, such as one post arguing that Google should respond to Damore’s memo by “disciplining or terminating those who have expressed support”.
— The Guardian (UK), 1/8/18
That said, until political persecution is prosecuted and fined just like any other kind of discrimination, this will continue and anyone not one of THEM will be targeted at their weaponized, search engine whims.
That’s What Friends Are For
As much as it’s nice to have a number of people who “like” your presence on Facebook, let’s be real. Out of the dozens or hundreds or more of people who are your “friends”, how many do you really know personally? How many did you know and hang out with years ago? Just a wild guess, I’d say that number is less than five percent. Ironically, the more popular you are on Facebook, that percentage goes down.
We have no control over who our social media “friends” really are. Their profiles, unless you really want to take the time to truly vet every single person who sends you a request, can be real or a fiction. As you’ve not had personal interaction with them, you don’t know if that’s someone you’d really want to be around or not, yet by accepting a friendship with them, you’re now associated with their words and activities, good or bad.
And there’s the superficial.
For example, way too many conservative men will be enamoured and will defend those women who call themselves “conservative” solely on the only thing presented: physical appearance first. We’ve seen many examples of female newcomers to the conservative movement with questionable, if not hostile, backgrounds being embraced mostly by conservative males who dismiss any vetting of the desired only because of the subjective “hotness” of that female. When their true motivations are exposed, they dissolve into online obscurity only after they’ve personally profited and the credibility of conservatives again become a laughstock to our political opponents.
Bang For the Buck
Many organizations have budgets allocated exclusively for Facebook promotion that will hopefully bring eyes to their websites. Facebook, depending on the amount of people who see a post, will ask if you’d like to give them money to “boost” said post.
There are many tech experts who’ve written exhaustive articles on just how to get people to actually go to a link on a Facebook or Twitter post. Almost all are in agreement that the vast majority of consumers read only what’s on the Facebook and Twitter post and very seldom click on a link (approximately 3%). Despite hundreds of hours taken to promote posts on this site, the most recent numbers verify their conclusions.
As of 9/10/18 around 11:30am in this very piece shared on Facebook, out of 193 people who saw it…
… only fifteen clicked on this link; a .077 percentage clearly in the waste-of-time category. The same probably goes for the dozens of memes, posts and Tweets with links to our page. Unlike others, we’re not stupid enough to pay Facebook to “boost”.
Then again, Facebook and Twitter gets all the activity, mines your topics, sends that information to their client advertisers and we get bombarded with the content they paid for.
There was a time before Facebook when a man would have the enjoyment of planning a special day for the woman in his life. He could plot, plan and at the end of the day, have a nice evening out with her.
But how many men today have that cloud hanging over them: if they don’t stay up until 11:59 the night before a special day and be the FIRST to post a message on Facebook… not good.
Of course, that’s not important to most women but it’s now an issue that can have dire consequences; even if you did buy flowers or take her out to a nice restaurant, if you didn’t post your acknowledgement on Facebook, there’s something wrong.
All this because of the social media pressures of sending a message to (again) dozens or more people you’ve never personally met.
The beauty of owning your own website is that you can post whatever you want, whenever you want from wherever. You are not subject to arbitrary “community guidelines” thus are subject to the objections of our political opponents which can result in shadow-banning or worse.
Think about the hundreds of hours invested in social media pushback that can be erased after being flagged by an anonymous butthurt, acted upon by a like-minded employee “monitor” at Twitter or Facebook, which can result in punitive measures including having your account deleted. Sadly, not everyone can afford or wants the headache of updating their own website and the social media gatekeepers know this as well, so you have to tread very carefully to exercise your First Amendment right on a private company’s platform where speech IS regulated at the personal whim of whomever is tasked with surveillance and enforcement.
And we all know how conservatives are fairly approached….
How many very successful businesses have had to alter their models and issue very public responses because of an outcry on social media? We see and heard news reports of “millions” of Tweets and hashtags created to exert pressure on a company because of something “trending”.
We had a restaurant in Washington, D.C., in an attempt to protect female patrons using their restrooms, take a major hit because of a transexual who claimed to have “hundreds of thousands” of “followers” objected and received media coverage. Did this person really have the backing of so many people who utilized the simple convenience of clicking on a “like” button on a post claiming victim status? Out of those “hundreds of thousands” of followers, how many real friends does this person have? A couple dozen or more?
We’ve seen CEOs from very successful companies have to step down because of personal political activities that inflamed certain groups; activities that had zero effect on the product used. All because of a pushback by many on social media that involved nothing but a click on a mouse.
We’ve seen issues blown up to international prominence in social media; issues based on an incorrect premise (see #Kony2012). Seeing how too many people don’t take the time to read beyond, it’s way to easy for an ignorant mob to be whipped up into a frenzy over something that never happened.
We continue to see others propped up as megastars, going back to Kim Kardashian; not because she did anything of real value, but merely because she exists and can successfully promote herself and family members with pictures on social media. We see others who’ve done nothing of real value (outside of talk), given a platform in the broadcast media because of a social media following of thousands who’ve never met them personally. In too many cases, it’s again their profile of selective imagery that has was too many swooning, like male congressional candidates and “pundits” who’ve achieved little politically but women on Facebook come right out and comment on his “hotness”.
Do You Really NEED Facebook and Twitter?
Don’t get me wrong. Facebook and Twitter is a convenient way to keep in touch with personal friends and family members as to your activities; something that was routinely done by email and/or a phone call. Would all communication cease if you couldn’t upload some photos and include the whereabouts? Obviously not, but also Facebook and Google now knows where you were and you now get notifications from restaurants and other places to frequent.
While many would argue that social media is a valuable promotional tool that leads to wonderful results, the results that lead to wild success are few and far between. But what do we really get out of it.
Aside from meeting my wonderful wife on Facebook, we really haven’t gotten a significant bang for the many hours spent promoting content on this website. Despite the many “offers” of interest and “exposure”, the last real job I had came as a result of physical content created; not a result of the amount of social media presence “likes” and “followers”.
And it came via email.
Laura once told me time is the most important thing we have in life is time because we never get it back.
Facebook and Twitter knows how many hours we’ve all given to them and if you were to see that number, would you really think it was worth it?
Dirty Little Secret
Have you noticed you never see any reference to social media in certain movie genres?
Obviously in a post-apocalyptic world with few resources, the Internet is non-existent meaning a lot of millennials wouldn’t last long. After all, how could they make a fire without a YouTube video cheatsheet?
Or maybe in science fiction fantasy, humans grew out of the need for instant gratification through that intoxicating quest for… likes.
Depending on the topic of a given post on Facebook, a button suddenly pops up.
Should you find yourself in an altruistic mood, Facebook offers you a selection of nonprofits they deem worthy of your support. As you may have guessed, almost all are far-left.
Like the Southern Poverty Law Center is hurting for donations….
Aside from the fraud-ridden Wounded Warrior Project nonprofit, there doesn’t appear to be any choice offered for a nonprofit many on the right would donate to and few are any run by minorities. Not like this is really a surprise.
Should you wish to donate to a “personal cause” other than that which Facebook endorses, here’s their screening process to determine worthiness.
Looks harmless enough.
Now, here’s where things get interesting.
You’re offered a limited amount of choices and hope you fit into one of their categories.
If your fundraiser doesn’t fit into any one of the above, things now become subjective.
If approved, any donations that do come in may go through Facebook first. Maybe not for an outright “fee”, but they may hold onto your cash for a couple of days or so they can accrue interest before forwarding the donation to you. It’s probably also a given the same interest gathering process occurs should you donate to one of their endorsed, chosen nonprofits.
How benevolent and generous.
When it comes to the level of incivility in our public discourse, we shouldn’t blame people who wrote something years ago now declared egregious by the self-declared consciences of society, or activists who ramp up heated emotions to the point of violent action, or the sanctimonious media who look down on all of us and dictate how we should look at any event they decide worthy of coverage, or even the President of the United States.
We should examine those who create the means of communication through their shortsighted visions, motivated by delusions of grandeur and monetary reward before thinking-through the ramifications on their potential consumers and society as a whole.
If those who created the social media platforms used widely from the early 2000’s through today had given just a little thought on how their websites would impact our methods of talking to each other, things today could’ve been a whole lot different. When the technology of cloning was being discussed, scientists and ethicists debated for years, not whether it could be done but should it.
For example, immature, forward thinking-challenged Harvard students created what we now call Facebook (Facemash.com) as a means of ranking the physical attributes of campus women. Odds are the males doing the ranking did so under the protection of cowardly anonymity.
From MySpace through YouTube through Facebook through Twitter, if users were required to provide their verified real name, verified age, most recent portrait and city location to initially “sign up”, just imagine how conversations would be conducted today as the abused shield of anonymity would not be a factor.
Because their identity would be a public and could be scrutinized by family members, friends, employers, and law enforcement if necessary, a mob of the anonymous would not exist to pressure anyone to say or take back anything they didn’t want to do. In far too many instances today, a person who says something on Facebook or Twitter is inundated with tens of thousands of virulent responses from “people” who may or may not have piled on if their friends and family (who may not agree with their take) could see not only their message but how they chose to respond.
Would most parents object to a son or daughter telling someone they didn’t know to go kill themself? Probably.
Would an employer have a problem with an employee posting an obscenity to a local politician who could directly and adversely affect their business? Probably.
But when someone can say some of the most vile things to another person that they’d never have the guts to say to their face, it emboldens the coward, emboldens the mob mentality, and the negative results are documented.
When people using aliases can now do criminal activities to others and/or their property and can broadcast it all live purely for the sake of hundreds of thousands of “likes”, it dehumanizes those they victimize and inspires the copycats as well as those who wish to take things further.
Unfortunately, the toothpaste is out of the tube. The arrogant bully can create any name not his or her, any graphic representation not of their true likeness, and can jump right in and ramp up any issue they want at any person they wish and make that person act and think the way they want them to. Should that person succumb to the demands of the empowered anonymous, the cowards are again emboldened to look for the next they wish to victimize. If it results in apologies, that becomes the next “trending” success narrative. If it results in a suicide, retrospection and apologizes are optional. If it results in violence, those who cheered events on can now pivot and pile on to whichever side convenient to their narcissism.
We will not have a return to a semblance of civility in society until social media realizes their platforms are THE major contributing factor and a total reboot is past due.
Until the cowardly anonymous are disarmed and thus held responsible for what they post on all platforms, we will see people’s careers destroyed, businesses impacted, and violent responses on the uptick. Those who hide behind false names will continue to tell us all how THEY want us to think and express ourselves or else or face a merciless horde.
Just a couple short generations ago, we didn’t experience the incivility seen today because we were social media. We didn’t have the luxury of being able to tell everyone we knew, and hundreds more we’ve never met face-to-face, something negative about someone we knew or never met. Speech required introspection. We had to know if it was something we really wanted to say to someone’s face and if we really wanted it known that it was said.
Today, throw all that out the window. Comments are now impulsive, at times not well thought out if at all, and can be issued by people who can’t be personally identified and held accountable. Showing their real cowardice, they can delete their posted attacks after the damage is done, free to move on to their next subjects.
Social media has empowered the gutless and when the weak can destroy the strong, we have a really fucked up mess to fix.
There was a time in this country, a hundred and fifty or so years ago, when you’d be called out for saying something negative to someone else. Negative comments or actions were resolved by duels in the streets that resulted in maiming, if not death, and bullies ruled until it was universally decided there were better ways to resolve petty conflicts.
Nations are run by those who initially portray themselves as the more level-headed amongst us, yet wars are initiated by the very “educated” elites who never have to pick up a weapon themselves and their words lead to consequences that have profound ramifications for those they call the “collateral”. But for the most part, prior to the public accessibility to the Internet in the very early 2000’s, people wouldn’t say to others what they wouldn’t say to their face.
Then came MySpace, Facebook and Twitter.
People could create an account, create a fictitious name, an avatar that was whatever physical representation that person wanted, and they can now add to the public debate in any fashion they wish; for the positive or negative. The effects vary between a classmate hounded by hundreds to businesses that have to alter their business models because of a real or false misstep, ramped up by a social media campaign of thousands of people; many who hide behind anonymity and some who may not even exist.
Some people fool the public into making us believe they’re more relevant than they really are.
Famous people on social media—actors, models, athletes, influencers—like to brag about the size of their follower count. But a New York Times investigation published Saturday found that a number of those celebrities buy at least a portion of their social media followers. At the center of the investigation was Devumi, a company that allegedly sells what the Times calls “amplification bots,” which follow the accounts of paying customers and are programmed to like and retweet their missives. The company also claims it can help its customers get more views on YouTube videos, more listens on SoundCloud and more endorsements on LinkedIn.
— Newsweek, 1/29/18
Today, we’ll have an incident and a participant can almost instantly become the center of the news cycle based purely on the amount of times his or her social media “message” is repeated. We’d like to believe the sharing is organic, but we also know numbers can be rigged to the benefit of a cause, even to crowd-funding financial benefit.
Unfortunately, the toothpaste can’t be put back into the tube and at the onset of the use of social media, anyone who signed up for an account had to display their actual name and portrait (preferably no more than a couple years old). As many of us would never approach someone bigger, get in their face and let loose with personal, unrestrained expletives, the anonymity of social media has provided cover for cowards those who have little respect for the feelings of others, bolstered by the possible false impression that those sentiments are shared by thousands, if not more.
Men normally don’t say things to another man’s face they can’t back up physically. However, women enjoy the luxury of that time-honored privilege of not having to face the physical ramifications of their outbursts. Social media has enabled members of the public to attack others at will from hundreds of miles away and force a subject to alter positions. Sometimes a subject willingly succumbs, may lose a job, a livelihood or business, have to find a new place to live, all because someone who was too chicken shit to use their own name was able to arouse the public and have it repeated by a so-called media that lazily refers to social media as a source of daily content.
While our news would be more uniform if those who disseminated it (on all levels) had to do so under oath under penalty of perjury, imagine a social media platform where those who participated had to show their real names and faces, thus were personally accountable for their posts.
It would be a very different world, indeed.
While Mark Zuckerberg plays victim off the media narrative that the Trump campaign used data provided by Cambridge Analytica; data supposedly from (depending which news reports you read) between 50-87 million unsuspecting Facebook users.
The problem is campaigns using data from Facebook to target potential voters is nothing new. While Zuckerberg and Senate Democrats are acting all shocked the activity happened, all was different in the ramp up to 2012’s Obama reelection campaign and Facebook was all too willing to assist.
According to Obama’s former 2012 “director for media analytics” Carol Davidsen….
The media didn’t appear to object to the Obama campaign’s ability to obtain access to Facebook users and even got higher-ups within to almost brag about what they did.
The Obama leaders not only wanted all the lists to be able to talk to one another, they also wanted people to be able to organize their friends and family members.
But this third piece of the puzzle provided the campaign with another treasure trove of information and an organizing tool unlike anything available in the past. It took months and months to solve, but it was a huge breakthrough. If a person signed on to Dashboard through his or her Facebook account, the campaign could, with permission, gain access to that person’s Facebook friends. The Obama team called this “targeted sharing.” It knew from other research that people who pay less attention to politics are more likely to listen to a message from a friend than from someone in the campaign. The team could supply people with information about their friends based on data it had independently gathered. The campaign knew who was and who wasn’t registered to vote. It knew who had a low propensity to vote. It knew who was solid for Obama and who needed more persuasion — and a gentle or not-so-gentle nudge to vote.
— Washington Post, 7/28/13
Facebook’s allowing the Obama campaign to “do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side” may or may not have been legally ethical, but despite how Zuckerberg and the Democrats are portraying what happened in 2016, it’s been done before and on a far greater scale. This was also another example where the media said one thing (“the campaign could, with permission, gain access”) and reality being something else entirely.
Zuckerberg faced some rather uncomfortable music on Capitol Hill on the topic….
In 2012, the Obama campaign encouraged supporters to download an Obama 2012 Facebook app that, when activated, let the campaign collect Facebook data both on users and their friends. According to a July 2012 MIT Technology Review article, when you installed the app, “it said it would grab information about my friends: their birth dates, locations, and ‘likes.’ “
The campaign boasted that more than a million people downloaded the app, which, given an average friend-list size of 190, means that as many as 190 million had at least some of their Facebook data vacuumed up by the Obama campaign — without their knowledge or consent.
— Investors Business Daily
Maybe the hashtag #FacebookObamaCollusion is more apropos.
While we in no way condone the actions of Nasim Aghdam at YouTube’s headquarters, her “rationale” was something many of us can relate to and the inherent inconsistent biases at the company have been made public in a very unfortunate way.
In a video posted in January 2017, she says YouTube “discriminated and filtered” her content. In the video, Aghdam says her channel used to get lots of views but that after being “filtered” by the company, it received far fewer views. In one online rant, she complained that YouTube censored her content by imposing an age restriction on one of her workout videos because they were too racy. She says the company failed to do the same thing for stars like Miley Cyrus and Nicki Minaj, whose videos, she says, are inappropriate for children.
— NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit, 4/3/18
Consistency has been an ongoing theme in our commentary over the years, and it comes down to that ol’ adage we heard from the first grade on, “If you do it for one, you have to do it for everybody.”
On the website and in YouTube videos, Ms. Aghdam discussed Persian culture, veganism and animal cruelty, performed music parodies and gave exercise tutorials. She had YouTube pages in Persian, Turkish and English. Her personal website included graphic photos of slaughtered animals and pleas not to wear fur jackets or have sex outside of marriage.
— New York Times, 4/4/18
In less than a couple of minutes, anyone can find content a whole lot more offensive than that on YouTube.
We, like possibly hundreds (if not more) of others, have had YouTube videos demonetized, if not removed, for various reasons that at times appears selective. Such demonetization of videos can be devastating to those who rely on the rewards for the popularity of their creations. Granted, there are rules regarding the outright theft of the work of others, but when you’re using copyrighted videos, giving proper attribution, and using them for the purpose of “commentary, education, and criticism” as covered by the Fair Use clause of the Copyright Act of 1976, then the proper leeway should be observed.
And while YouTube is a private company and can basically impose whatever rules they want on their customers, one would hope they would be fair, especially when it came to political discussion. It clearly would not be, especially when YouTube became an official arm of Google.
According to a February 2005 USA Today article on the subject:
“As it claws for greater power, the Democratic Party has found a newly rich ally in one of the fastest—growing U.S. companies: Google.”
The article stated that of the over $200,000 Google employees gave to federal candidates in 2004, ‘98% went to Democrats, the biggest share among top tech donors.’ And, with a largely successful public stock offering making ‘scores of millionaires among [Google’s] 3,000 workers.
Google has become the single largest private corporate underwriter of MoveOn. According to sources in the Democrat National Committee, MoveOn has received more than $1 million from Google and its lobbyists in Washington to create grassroots support for the Internet regulation legislation [‘Net Neutrality’]. Some of that money has gone to an online petition drive and a letter-writing campaign, but the majority of that money is being used to fund their activities against Republicans out in the states.
— Noel Sheppard and Marc Sheppard, 10/16/06
While some of our videos (which are unabashedly conservative) have been targeted or removed by YouTube for “copyright infringement” or a violation of their “community standards”, it doesn’t take long to find soft pornography, violent or profanity-laden videos, readily-available on YouTube. You can also easily find entire albums of bands on YouTube with hundreds of thousands of views, monetized with ads and have been there for years, despite the supposed monitoring for blatant copyright infringement. You can easily find so-called “music” videos that would have to be blurred or bleeped for airing on national television, uploaded by influential entertainment industry companies that children can view, but a video criticizing a former Democrat president could be flagged for hate speech; a flagging process that can be initiated by ONE butthurt liberal who, like many, would much rather shut down speech instead of engage it.
We don’t know if YouTube has too much overhead, including employees and all the costs associated, but it appeared earlier this year they decided to tighten their belt at the expense of their customers.
The company sent a platform-wide email on Tuesday night to give users 30-days’ notice about the site’s new eligibility requirements requiring users to reach a threshold of at least 4,000 hours of watchtime within the past 12 months and a minimum of 1,000 subscribers.
To put it in perspective, 50,000 full views on a single, five-minute video is equal to 4,166 hours — a small order for any decent-sized channel.
Users who fail to meet this threshold will lose complete access to monetization tools and features associated with the YouTube Partner Program next month, on Feb. 20. The terms serve as an effective termination for everyone on the platform who fails to meet the goal by then.
— Daily Caller, 1/17/18
Over the years, YouTube’s rules evolve affecting hundreds of thousands, if not millions of users. This is huge for people who are trying to get any kind of return on their most valuable, nonrenewable asset: their time.
She complained on her website that “new close-minded youtube employees” had “filtered my channels” starting in 2016, causing the number of views on her videos to decrease. She posted a screenshot of her YouTube page showing that one video had received 366,591 views but that she would receive an estimated $0.10 in advertising revenue from it.
“My revenue for 300,000 is $0.10?????” she wrote.
Again, we in no way condone violence and what happened Tuesday at YouTube was horrible.
That said, we understand the frustration when selective enforcement and/or the creation of unrealistic rules are imposed by a behemoth that is indifferent as they hold all the cards. Add personal bias that impacts the livelihood and you get a toxic mix that drove someone to a criminal act.
And after all the grief counseling for the traumatized at YouTube HQ, it will be business as usual.
Remember, this is now the generation that tells adults how much we don’t know.
So-called free-range parenting will soon be the law of the land in Utah after the governor signed what appears to be the country’s first measure to formally legalize allowing kids to do things on their own to foster self-sufficiency.
The bill, which Gov. Gary Herbert announced Friday that he’d signed, specifies that it isn’t neglectful to let kids do things alone like travel to school, explore a playground or stay in the car. The law takes effect May 8.
— Associated Press, 3/16/18
Believe it or not, there was a time when walking to school (weather conditions would require appropriate adjustment) and later going out to play was a normal activity of childhood. Then again, there were no video games, dozens of television stations or other substitutes for babysitters. Granted, there were families where both parents were working, so they did what would now be considered the unthinkable: they left children at home and taught them the advanced activity of knowing how to lock the door behind them and how to unlock it to let themselves back in. Some of us had to learn to prepare lunches of varying complexity, meaning some of us were entrusted with the arduous task of cooking.
Weather was a minor factor as we’d still go out and play. The difference was we’d adapt and seek what is now known as shelter so we could still hang out but not be rained or snowed upon. That might require utilizing a garage or under a porch, but there was very little to keep us inside.
While outside unsupervised, that child would go out and meet up with other children in the neighborhood to engage in a variety of activities. Children would play stick-ball (a more modest version of baseball) on side streets using a bat and sometimes a tennis or Wiffle ball. Sometimes children would play street hockey, or mimic some of the television programs of the time like Batman, Superman, or the Green Hornet where they’d be arguments over who would be Kato.
It was very normal for children of all ages to go out and play. It was never deemed a sign of neglect worthy of having some social worker from Child Protective Service investigate a family for neglect. Maybe that’s why today’s young people are less able to handle the many adversities of life; adversities that come with challenging activities that occurred after school before going home for supper, on weekends, and during those long summer months.
Little could be done anonymously. We learned to deal with challenges as they happened in real time. We learned to socialize in person. There were winners and losers. There were conflicts that were almost always resolved face-to-face.
BTW — There were no mass school violence incidents. Zero, ever.
We’re not sure when this all formally changed, but it was clearly not for the better as we now have children quite content in staying home all day, engaging their peers via social media behind a PC or smartphone, and not expending the physical exercise and using the imagination all young people have but are now being forced to suppress for the convenience of parents and teachers.
Who ever thought walking to school or going out to play would be considered child neglect and/or abuse that was actually labeled the same as farm animals… “free range”, seriously?