Postcards from the Clown Show

[A Son of Liberty]

But that can't be it. At this point, anyone who hasn't already drunk their Kool-Aid isn't likely to start just because of YouTube's ludicrously clumsy attempt at "context" - especially as it is attached to a video by a reputable journalist who purports to challenge and debunk "The Enduring Media Lies Surrounding January 6" (per the video title), and given that watching that video is presumably the reason why any visitor to that page who sees that "context" is even there to begin with.

IOW: Anyone at all likely to watch Greenwald's video is not also likely to be swayed by YouTube's absurd "context" label, and anyone who is likely to be swayed by YouTube's absurd "context" label is not likely to be there to see it in the first place. So what's the point, apart from echo-chambered self-reassurance?

Fairly stated.

But keep in mind that a lot of people share these videos on social media where their "uninitiated" (which is to say, 'sheeple') family and friends might click and watch, and - gawd forbid - receive unapproved information. These little "warning labels" can potentially "protect" said sheeple from such dangerous "misinformation" and maybe even keep them from actually watching altogether.

 

[Occam's Banana]

You know... This is a good thing. These labels have really become to represent "Official State Narrative".

So it's easy for people. When you see a "Context" label, you're seeing the OSN label. Who says the government isn't effective??

The OSN label tells me the content is worth looking at.

Just so. It's a nice little white pill.

IOW: Anyone at all likely to watch Greenwald's video is not also likely to be swayed by YouTube's absurd "context" label, and anyone who is likely to be swayed by YouTube's absurd "context" label is not likely to be there to see it in the first place. So what's the point, apart from echo-chambered self-reassurance?

I can understand why they would do this sort of thing for "pushed" content (such as Twitter and Facebook feeds), where the content is served to the audience without the audience having to go look for it. But for "pulled" content (such as YouTube video web pages), where the audience actively has to go looking for it, it doesn't really make any sense. I guess it just gives the people who make such "context" labels a feel-good sense that they're "doing something".

 

[Occam's Banana]

Fairly stated.

But keep in mind that a lot of people share these videos on social media where their "uninitiated" (which is to say, 'sheeple') family and friends might click and watch, and - gawd forbid - receive unapproved information. These little "warning labels" can potentially "protect" said sheeple from such dangerous "misinformation" and maybe even keep them from actually watching altogether.

But YouTube videos are playable in place via the social media platforms at which they are embedded, so the "uninitiated" who encounter them won't see the "context" label on the web page at YouTube. [1] And even if they did, I'm skeptical that many who would otherwise have been likely to watch such videos would be deterred from doing so merely because of the "context" labels. I mean, at this point, it's not as if anyone who encounters such videos would be unaware of their "unapproved" status anyway. After all, who hasn't yet heard J6 characterized as an "insurrection" by "domestic terrorists" a countless number of times by now? YouTube repeating it one more time isn't going to clue anyone in on anything, and I don't think many who are apt to be deterred by YouTube's "context" labels were going to be apt to watch those videos anyway, whether they're labeled or not.

The more I consider it, the more it seems like the application of these "context" labels [2] is just a form of self-soothing behavior by YouTube.



[1] Although YouTube has recently started adding click-to-see "pop ups" on the embedded interface. (Maybe they discovered their on-site "context" labels weren't getting the desired "reach" or effect.) But those are easy to miss or ignore.

​

[2] At least as employed by YouTube. The ones used by Twitter & Facebook might actually have better effect, due to the nature of "push content" on those platforms (see my previous post). But even then, they're quite possibly as counter-productive as they are productive, and perhaps even more so (see the previous posts by @CaptUSA and @cjm).

 

[A Son of Liberty]

But YouTube videos are playable in place via the social media platforms at which they are embedded, so the "uninitiated" who encounter them won't see the "context" label on the web page at YouTube. [1] And even if they did, I'm skeptical that many who would otherwise have been likely to watch such videos would be deterred from doing so merely because of the "context" labels. I mean, at this point, it's not as if anyone who encounters such videos would be unaware of their "unapproved" status anyway. After all, who hasn't yet heard J6 characterized as an "insurrection" by "domestic terrorists" a countless number of times by now? I don't think many who are apt to be deterred by YouTube's "context" labels are going to be apt to watch those videos anyway, whether they're labeled or not.

The more I consider it, the more it seems like the application of these "context" labels [2] is just a form of self-soothing behavior by YouTube.



[1] Although YouTube has recently started adding click-to-see "pop ups" on the embedded interface. (Maybe they discovered their on-site "context" labels weren't getting the desired "reach" or effect.) But those are easy to miss or ignore.

​

[2] At least as employed by YouTube. The ones used by Twitter & Facebook might actually have better effect, due to the nature of "push content" on those platforms (see my previous post). But even then, they're quite possibly as counter-productive as they are productive, and perhaps even more so (see the previous posts by [MENTION=30558]CaptUSA[/MENTION] and [MENTION=25558]cjm[/MENTION]).

The videos are playable in place, but they also give the viewer the option to "Watch on YouTube", where they would encounter the "context warning".

As to who would be deterred by the "warning"... I'm increasingly of the opinion that there are broad swaths (probably not 95% of the population, granted) of people who frankly have no idea what happened on 1/6/2021. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of people (I'm not going to again speculate on the percentage of the gross population) who would be dissuaded from watching the video out of concern for finding themselves on some kind of "government list" (which is disconcerting in and of itself).

ETA: I'd be willing to bet that YT has internal data that indicates that their "warning labels" deter people - and particularly "left-leaning people" from view such content. I doubt they'd waste their time otherwise.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[pcosmar]

The videos are playable in place, but they also give the viewer the option to "Watch on YouTube", where they would encounter the "context warning".

As to who would be deterred by the "warning"... I'm increasingly of the opinion that there are broad swaths (probably not 95% of the population, granted) of people who frankly have no idea what happened on 1/6/2021. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of people (I'm not going to again speculate on the percentage of the gross population) who would be dissuaded from watching the video out of concern for finding themselves on some kind of "government list" (which is disconcerting in and of itself).

ETA: I'd be willing to bet that YT has internal data that indicates that their "warning labels" deter people - and particularly "left-leaning people" from view such content. I doubt they'd waste their time otherwise.

I have been following several Live Streamers,,every day. and never seen any warnings.. and I am not logged in to YouTube..

J6 vigil every night,, Border crossing,, various events..

No warnings.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The videos are playable in place, but they also give the viewer the option to "Watch on YouTube", where they would encounter the "context warning".

They would, if they click through to "Watch on YouTube" - but it's not clear if that happens to any significant degree.

As to who would be deterred by the "warning"... I'm increasingly of the opinion that there are broad swaths (probably not 95% of the population, granted) of people who frankly have no idea what happened on 1/6/2021. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of people (I'm not going to again speculate on the percentage of the gross population) who would be dissuaded from watching the video out of concern for finding themselves on some kind of "government list" (which is disconcerting in and of itself).

I suspect there's no significant overlap between "has no idea what happened on 1/6/2021" and "is concerned about being on some kind of 'government list'". I doubt there are many who are ignorant on the former count but aware on the latter (or vice versa).

ETA: I'd be willing to bet that YT has internal data that indicates that their "warning labels" deter people - and particularly "left-leaning people" from view such content. I doubt they'd waste their time otherwise.

Oh, of that I have no doubt. I'm sure they are well satisfied with themselves - if they weren't, they wouldn't being doing what they are doing they way they are doing it. But whatever their internal data may be, theory always precedes analysis, and you may be underestimating the degree of self-delusion (and/or lack of self-awareness) of which ideologically motivated thought-cops are capable. They can't count views that never happen - at most, they can only count page hits that don't result in views [1]. So unless they are allowing a significant amount of "unapproved" content of similar kind and reach to go un"context"ualized by them for purposes of comparison (and as far as I know, they are not), then they have no sound basis (but only ideological bases) for assessing the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of their "context"ualization efforts.



[1] In much the same way, book banners in Boston could (try to) count how many banned books were sold in Boston bookstores - and were no doubt greatly heartened to discover that the number was zero (or close to it). And yet, there is a reason it became a byword that authors would seek to get their books banned in Boston.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I would say "what an absolute muppet" ... but I actually like the Muppets ...

https://twitter.com/ClownWorld_/status/1611839812998234112

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1611517218944319488

 

[A Son of Liberty]

https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1611517218944319488

Literally 1984. Freedom is Slavery.

 

[Anti Federalist]

https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1611517218944319488

In Braveheart, the scene that my avatar is taken from, William Wallace asks the Scottish nobles, who claim he has no right to lead or negotiate for their army:

"And if this is your army, then why does it go?"

At 3:00.



And that is what I would ask Gruesome:

"If this is the place where anybody can be anything and accomplish anything, the citadel of freedom, then why do your people go?"

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

John Wayne’s Granddaughter Left California for Nashville Because ‘It’s Very Family-Friendly, Quality of Life Is Awesome’

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/laurahelmuth/status/1611877742298939394

"The replies to any tweet about pink unicorns prove the existence of pink unicorns."

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] has spoken! Now shut up and move along, peon!

(Helmuth is editor-in-chief of Scientific Scientistic American.)

 

[Occam's Banana]

"I therefore require you to [...] arrange a voluntary interview [...]" -- Constable Friendly

 

[Anti Federalist]

And keep in mind, the one the left is no "Miss".

That's a fat Asian tranny dude in a dress and makeup.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

Bikini-Clad Lizzo Celebrates Obesity in Instagram Video: ‘This Body Is Art’

 

[TheTexan]

Bikini-Clad Lizzo Celebrates Obesity in Instagram Video: ‘This Body Is Art’

Thanks for that