Media bias and Google/YouTube

[Neumann Films]

Yeah, I don't buy that the media is slanted one way or the other.  Follow the money, if making fun of trump and Republicans gets the most clicks, that's what they go with.  It gets them the best of both worlds. Hate clicks from Republicans and gloat clicks from Democrats.  

There might be a little preferential treatment but I would attribute that to Democratic parties investing in media conglomorates.  Again...just money.

Do you blame Disney for pushing out super hero films 24/7? At what point is it the consumers fault? I say...always.  Large entities like a Disney cannot (repeat...cannot) exist in a Capitilist society like ours AND have morals at the same time.  

Blame the consumers for the latest Transformers film and blame consumers for the media frenzy (no matter which way it's slanted...does it even matter?)

[tomekk]

Are media in the US separated entities and nobody owns them? If someone owns them, isn't it logical that except money, they also follow (to some extent at least) core values of the owner(s)?

43 minutes ago, Neumann Films said:

Do you blame Disney for pushing out super hero films 24/7? At what point is it the consumers fault? I say...always.  Large entities like a Disney cannot (repeat...cannot) exist in a Capitilist society like ours AND have morals at the same time.  

Blame the consumers for the latest Transformers film and blame consumers for the media frenzy (no matter which way it's slanted...does it even matter?)

Is it consumers fault that they were born in a world where multi billion dollar companies know inside out human's psychology and know exactly how to shape their worldview/make them want to buy things etc. from the very young age? Is it a level playing field?

[silvertonesx24]

4 hours ago, Neumann Films said:

I really couldn't say, it just seems like what happened with Facebook a few years ago where your videos don't quite reach the audience you know is there.  It wasn't gradual, it happened within a week or so.

Yeah, maybe that's it.  They want to push longer videos now or something?  Who knows.

That sounds about right. I haven't been on either platform (as a creator) long enough to notice these things from that perspective. 

From what I've heard, YouTube SEO today is all about the recommendation engine. Best practice is to find the channels and videos that do well and copy them close enough so that you'll show up in recommended videos. As Andrew mentioned if everyone in your market is into clickbait style junk then you have no choice but to play follow the leader and do the same. Then since these are public companies highly valued based on a potential monetization of mass audiences they're all going to force you to pay to play in the end.

All of this feels like in 20 years everything will conglomerate into only a few giant channels with the budgets and resources to pay to play and we will be were we were before the internet democratized everything.

[Neumann Films]

1 hour ago, tomekk said:

Are media in the US separated entities and nobody owns them? If someone owns them, isn't it logical that except money, they also follow (to some extent at least) core values of the owner(s)?

Is it consumers fault that they were born in a world where multi billion dollar companies know inside out human's psychology and know exactly how to shape their worldview/make them want to buy things etc. from the very young age? Is it a level playing field?

That depends on how much faith you have in the average human to turn down money for their values.  How often do you see that choice being made on the smallest of scales?  It's no different at any point on the pay scale ladder. 

When you are in a free for all market, you slowly shed morals.  Not all at once and maybe not completely, but if your competition screws you over, you bend just a hair and justify it.  This has been happening in America now for...a long time.  So it's bent more than just "a hair". 

No, it's an uphill battle for consumers but it is STILL their dollar.  Their choice. If we simply...stopped watching Transformers movies they would cease to be made.

I know chicken and the egg arguments are a lost cause but this isn't quite that scenario.  We still have free will, even though it seems we don't in this case.  We always do.  Therefore...it's on the consumer.

[tomekk]

I think I know what you mean, but don't people have different values and morals? Do you think, people choose morals and values themselves or they're external? In other words, don't they come from other people who shape their worldview from the youngest age? What about values and morals of the Al-Qaeda trained 5 year old kids - just thinking of an extreme example to illustrate my point. 

Couldn't it be consumers dollar but not exactly entirely their choice? We all know, half the stuff we own we don't really need, don't we? GAS syndrome anyone? ;). If their free will is based on their values and their values are based on whoever shapes their worldview then is it really their choice in the end? LOL, it's getting confusing so I'll stop here ;).  I'll end with a TED talk that touches on the issue a little bit:

<iframe src="https://embed.ted.com/talks/tristan_harris_the_manipulative_tricks_tech_companies_use_to_capture_your_attention" width="854px" height="480px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>

 

[Neumann Films]

26 minutes ago, tomekk said:

I think I know what you mean, but don't people have different values and morals? Do you think, people choose morals and values themselves or they're external? In other words, don't they come from other people who shape their worldview from the youngest age? What about values and morals of the Al-Qaeda trained 5 year old kids - just thinking of an extreme example to illustrate my point. 

Couldn't it be consumers dollar but not exactly entirely their choice? We all know, half the stuff we own we don't really need, don't we? GAS syndrome anyone? ;). If their free will is based on their values and their values are based on whoever shapes their worldview then is it really their choice in the end? LOL, it's getting confusing so I'll stop here ;).  I'll end with a TED talk that touches on the issue a little bit:

<iframe src="https://embed.ted.com/talks/tristan_harris_the_manipulative_tricks_tech_companies_use_to_capture_your_attention" width="854px" height="480px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>

 

We all obviously have variations of a "moral code" but I believe in overall human decency.  So if we are similar in that way we all have similar weaknesses.

In America, for instance, sayings like "nice guys finish last" are commonplace. Getting ahead is encouraged, without any thought to whom or what you might be trampling to get there.  The American Dream is great for those that succeed but that success can't be possible without someone else NOT gaining success.

Being content, in a consumer ran system is one of the hardest things to achieve. Doesn't it feel like that these days?

 

[tomekk]

15 minutes ago, Neumann Films said:

Being content, in a consumer ran system is one of the hardest things to achieve. Doesn't it feel like that these days?

Yeah, companies are working hard to keep you buying but it's definitely possible. I haven't replaced my mobile phone since 2013!  

[IronFilm]

On 8/23/2017 at 5:31 PM, jcs said:

What about Vimeo as a YT rival? Patreon is thriving since the demonetization (censorship) program was started.

I strongly dislike the censorship Patreon has been doing lately in cutting off several prominent people just because Patreon doesn't like their views :-/ 

Ditto PayPal! Sigh. 

Yet I use PayPal a lot as my basic invoicing system. Need to start thinking about something else to use instead so that I stop supporting PayPal :-/ 

15 hours ago, EthanAlexander said:

It seems JCS is simply requesting that we as filmmakers make extra effort to make our films/videos have positive meaning. Left, right, up, or down, I think we can agree that's something to think about and is certainly applicable to a site full of filmmakers.

I have discussions all the time with people about the purpose of film and whether it's our responsibility to be positive, refrain from opinion, just deliver entertainment, etc... 

I think it's worthwhile discussion. 

I originally developed my interest in filmmaking because I looked around and saw a terrible lack (or what little there was, it was of extremely poor standard!) of media supporting my viewpoints in my country. 

Heh, yet unfortunately all these years later... I'd done little to fix that myself?! As I developed a love of filmmaking in general for its own sake and been keeping busy on too many other non-political projects!!

[IronFilm]

14 hours ago, Neumann Films said:

This is why I have been thinking more and more (lately) that Documentaries are the only answer.  The issue there is that you generally just preach to the choir.  Some form of entertainment is necessary just to get the eyeballs that need to see it, watching the piece.

My two favorite movies are documentaries (which you can view the full films for free online!!):

1) "Line of Sight".

As it gives a very small insight into the world of being a bike messenger (which I live and breath myself! It is what I do in between my freelance jobs as a sound recordist on set), that otherwise the normal average person just can not do. 

https://www.pinkbike.com/video/299661/

 

 

2) "Fat Head".

Because it exposes what nonsense the food pyramid is. And that eating fat is not as evil as everyone seems to think it is. (personally I've been living a Low Card High Fat diet since 2011! And will carry on so for the rest of my life). 

 

 

 

[Neumann Films]

2 hours ago, tomekk said:

Yeah, companies are working hard to keep you buying but it's definitely possible. I haven't replaced my mobile phone since 2013!  

I applaud that.  Tempted to downgrade my phone back to a non smart version. Keypad for texting, no internet...mmmmmmm

[IronFilm]

11 hours ago, silvertonesx24 said:

From my perspective clickbait has infested YouTube over the last year or more. Make an obnoxious reaction face thumbnail and pad your video with lots of blab so there's more space for ad placements.

Noticed how many videos are 10 minutes and a few seconds? Is because the 10 minute mark is where they'll get more adverts/money for the video.

[UncleBobsPhotography]

Another topic this brings up is "how to sell an un-sell-able opinion". Mr. Damore's opinion is one that easily creates a lot of negative press regardless of whether what he said is correct or not. As filmmakers we might therefore ask ourselves, how do we best present something that people do not want to hear? How do we successfully preach against the choir?

Metaphors is as discussed earlier one technique. For the last few years I have worked on a piece on a very controversial topic where I want to present something that goes against the main stream opinion. However, I have seen several filmmakers and writers try to do it before, but nobody want to write about them and they gather no support, while content with the opposite narrative is given first page covers. I have still not been able to figure out how I will make my final delivery, but I am starting to believe that the only way to deliver it will be to create a film which seems to deliver the main-stream narrative, but in the end leaves the audience with the gut feeling that "this is not right". It could be done with a twist, slowly adjusting the narrative as the film progresses, or keep the same narrative throughout the story, but let the audience feel like they're on the wrong side.

[Neumann Films]

1 minute ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

Another topic this brings up is "how to sell an un-sell-able opinion". Mr. Damore's opinion is one that easily creates a lot of negative press regardless of whether what he said is correct or not. As filmmakers we might therefore ask ourselves, how do we best present something that people do not want to hear? How do we successfully preach against the choir?

Metaphors is as discussed earlier one technique. For the last few years I have worked on a topic on a very controversial topic where I want to present something that goes against the main stream opinion. However, I have seen several filmmakers and writers try to do it before, but nobody want to write about them and they gather no support, while content with the opposite narrative is given first page covers. I have still not been able to figure out how I will make my final delivery, but I am starting to believe that the only way to deliver it will be to create a film which seems to deliver the main-stream narrative, but in the end leaves the audience with the gut feeling that "this is not right". It could be done with a twist, slowly adjusting the narrative as the film progresses, or keep the same narrative throughout the story, but let the audience feel like they're on the wrong side.

Comedy is always a decent approach. At the very least if you make the characters bizarre enough people will think you're making fun of both sides.

[fuzzynormal]

My 2 cents is that the notion that conservatives are somehow being silenced is a bit silly. 

Their voices are often the loudest and most boisterous in the USA. 

They have ample representation in the media as well.

The USA had a strong moderate attitude after WWII because it was tempered by the conflict and post war economic boom.

I believe modern citizens actually have it better these days, but  perceived slights are embraced and railed upon simply because of a weird human desire to justify ourselves. 

...not unlike a newbie camera owner  rationalizing their purchase by bad mouthing a different piece of gear. 

And, look, the Internet is a shell game.  It's evolved into a manipulative and exploitive tool because it can be. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fake-polls-are-a-real-problem/

Some citizens have the ability to be aware of this, others never will be. The 'others' will never ever ever be in short supply. 

Some people are skeptics. Some people are willfully gullible. So it is, so it has ever been. 

--don't see that changing as long as humanity exists. 

[jcs]

Here is the result of my research this summer, simplified as much as possible:

 

Energy and Information Control in the World Today

 

Flow of Information and Control

World Power

Our current money is a form of energy accounting. Energy used over time is Power: physics. The world currently runs on the petrodollar: actual energy (oil) and FIAT accounting (Federal Reserve Notes, or FRNs). FIAT is latin for “let it become” and is a kind of IOU. It’s purely an accounting for energy exchange, not based on real tangible assets.

Who Rules the World

The people who create and control the money supply rule the world: the trillionaire+ Rulers. In the USA it’s the people who control the Federal Reserve (FED), a private banking cartel, which contrary to its name is not under government control. Which means it is not managed by the will of the people of the USA, but rather transnational banking interests. And for every dollar created, we go further into debt and the Rulers become more powerful.

The FED creates money out of thin air every time the government borrows money, and in turn every time consumers borrow money from the banks. A major talking point is “reducing the national debt”. However the way the system is currently structured, it’s impossible to pay off the debt. Because of the way the FED makes money on interest for the loans, it’s impossible to pay it off. If the government and consumers stop borrowing money, the system will collapse. The system is entering the terminal stage, meaning that in the near future it will collapse, similar to what happened with the Great Depression, except this time it would happen on a global scale with far greater consequences.

Why the USA Seems to be Going Crazy Right Now

The USA and it’s allies have the most powerful combined military in the world, by far. If a world war starts, it will provide cover for the Rulers to restructure and create a new monetary system of control while the militaries save us from whatever threat the Rulers have manufactured. While it may seem hard to believe, every major war since the USA was formed was funded by the Rulers. And they funded both sides, including Germany for WWII, and even helping to create communism by supporting Lenin in Russia. The strategy is brilliantly simple: create internal and external division, and fund both sides until they can provide a solution which ends up giving them even more power and control.

The Rulers created the terrorism and migrant crises', and now that enough people have realized this, they are concentrating most of their energy in weakening the USA by creating division in any and every way possible. Civil war is clearly one of their goals, as is world war III. They tried with Ukraine and Syria, and now they are focused on North Korea (Iran is still in play as well).

The Rulers are brilliantly ruthless. They are lead by psychopaths and sociopaths, who have no mercy or empathy. From a systems power and control analysis, this makes perfect sense that they would rise to the top of power. They can do whatever it takes to win. These same kinds of people also control many top corporations, which are legally ‘individuals’ operating as psychopaths: do whatever it takes to create a profit for the benefit of the shareholders.

The reason it appears almost impossible for change to happen in Washington DC, is for two primary reasons. First, the system is completely corrupt, held together by blackmail and bribes. It’s pretty much impossible to prosecute one or a few without the whole system blowing up as pretty much everyone is in on the game. It’s like asking a gang of criminals to prosecute themselves for crimes they have committed: they’ll protect each other and make the case that no crimes have actually been committed. Second, the system is controlled by the Rulers, not the people. The two-party system is a charade.

The Rulers understand that millions of people now realize what is going on, and civil unrest is rapidly accelerating. It would appear that marching on DC and demanding change would be a solution. However that could start civil war and marshal law would be declared. This would result in a complete loss of liberty and consolidation of power for the Rulers. They have bunkers all over the world, including some as large as underground cities complete with shopping mails and functioning replacement governments. At least some of them will survive all out global nuclear war and/or biological war based on state of the art targeted bio weapons.

The Rulers are a combination of people born into wealth as well as  some of the most intelligent people on Earth. They are now using real-time artificial intelligence, operating on social media intelligence gathering, to shape the world view in real-time! They realize that the average person is, by definition, of average intelligence, and historically, large populations haven’t done well to manage themselves or resources without a strong power structure keeping it all together. In their defense, they have a valid point. However, their agenda means to control the population’s behavior, as well as the population's numbers, by any means necessary. Deep down they truly believe they are doing the right thing. While wars are terrible and many have suffered as the result of forced regime changes, overall the world has been more peaceful and prosperous than all of prior recorded history, which has resulted in an unsustainable population explosion.

The question for us all, is there a better way? Must we suffer through another global economic disaster if the petrodollar collapses? Must we suffer through a civil or global war in order to facilitate another reset?

Crypto currency is seeing massive growth, and people are getting rich from it. While a friend recently boasted of buying a new home from cryptocurrency profits, I suspect crypto may have been developed by the Rulers. Why? Because it was released from a secret source, supposedly from a single person, Satoshi Nakamoto (not a real name). While it’s certainly possible that a single genius developed it and released it anonymously, it’s also possibly the result of a large group of people’s work, as a way to start transitioning away from the petrodollar and providing as-yet-unknown ways of maintaining control of a system which on the surface appears to be fully decentralized. Such a crypto system could contain unseen back doors, especially if NSA level folks worked to help develop it.

From a simulation and systems point of view, it would appear that developing many small systems of management and control, which loosely interact to form a larger system, would be a viable ‘better way’. Such as the original idea for the United States. Currently that system doesn’t work, and the Federal government controlled by the Rulers have ultimate authority and control everything, including mainstream media to shape the people’s thoughts through well understood psychology.

A peaceful solution would be to walk away from the system. Everyone leave the cities and live in smaller rural communities which are self-sufficient: making their own food, clean water, shelter, and anything else they need to live a good life. By using barter or some other system of energy accounting, no taxes would be paid other than minimal taxes as required by current law for land, etc. The Rulers realize this, and communes in the past which have tried this have been labeled cults and once large enough have been ended by the Rulers.

So What can We Do?

With a goal of minimizing global suffering, and to promote a good life for as many people as possible, the first step is education. For as many people as possible to understand how the global system currently works, and who’s doing what and why in terms of information exchange.

A financial system reset is needed: can we figure out a workable soft reset, so we can prevent war? The difference today vs. the past is the internet is a giant, intelligent being. With the combined intelligence of everyone online, along perhaps with artificial intelligence systems, we should be able to develop a stable, healthy, and sustainable system that has never existed before. For the so-called Age of Aquarius: a new way of living not based on consumption, which is unsustainable on a planetary scale.

As media creators, first and foremost our mission in education is healing division. Once we stop taking what’s going on in Washington as a real, functioning system, vs. the Theater for Division, we can collectively focus on what’s necessary to improve the system without collapse. Perhaps this starts with the FED and financial systems, including a restructuring of the tax system. Simplifying and streamlining the system to remove hidden wastes of energy (money) will result in massive improvements for the quality of millions of lives, all over the world.

In summary, we the people of Earth must develop a new way of living sustainably, which we can test via artificial intelligence and simulation systems before trying it out on the world. At the same time, these modeling systems can give us real-time feedback in ways never before possible to fine tune the system’s performance to more quickly reach working solutions.

[Bizz]

16 hours ago, Neumann Films said:

I applaud that.  Tempted to downgrade my phone back to a non smart version. Keypad for texting, no internet...mmmmmmm

You should really try it. In 10 years (and couting) i only had 2 mobile phones (and i only buy one when it stops working) and i never, ever, use internet on it. By choice. I dont want to be online all the time. I dont need it. So, for example, when im on the bus or subway i like to listen to some music or just think about stuff and do a lot of observation. PS: But thats me and my experience...i respect who likes to be online on their smartphone.

[Tim Sewell]

The problem you find is that the non-smartphones on sale currently are of very poor quality. I tried to get around this by buying older Nokias - of which there are many, brand new, still around - but none of them has lasted more than a few months and I'm not sure why.

[IronFilm]

7 minutes ago, Tim Sewell said:

The problem you find is that the non-smartphones on sale currently are of very poor quality. I tried to get around this by buying older Nokias - of which there are many, brand new, still around - but none of them has lasted more than a few months and I'm not sure why.

Bad batteries? Buy a fresh battery for them. 

But then again it depends why it is stopping working for you?

[Tim Sewell]

I used new batteries. I wonder if it's to do with the fact that buying old phones brand new means you get the original firmware, with any updates no longer being available. Mind you, it's mainly been the screens that have failed, so maybe they deteriorate if they're unused for such a long time.

[tomekk]

On 24/08/2017 at 7:44 AM, Neumann Films said:

I applaud that.  Tempted to downgrade my phone back to a non smart version. Keypad for texting, no internet...mmmmmmm

8 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

The problem you find is that the non-smartphones on sale currently are of very poor quality. I tried to get around this by buying older Nokias - of which there are many, brand new, still around - but none of them has lasted more than a few months and I'm not sure why.

21 hours ago, Bizz said:

You should really try it. In 10 years (and couting) i only had 2 mobile phones (and i only buy one when it stops working) and i never, ever, use internet on it. By choice. I dont want to be online all the time. I dont need it. So, for example, when im on the bus or subway i like to listen to some music or just think about stuff and do a lot of observation. PS: But thats me and my experience...i respect who likes to be online on their smartphone.

It's different for everyone but I think almost nobody wants to waste time (? ). I think smartphones are useful but I don't see any reason to upgrade because I find that my phone (oneplusone) very rarely uses all 4 cores @ max frequency (2.4GHz). It does, sometimes, but not enough to justify buying a new one every 6 months. It seems that developers are behind hardware for a lot of apps/web browsers etc. If you don't think it's the case it is because of all bloatware that is on your phone. Not sure if it's still the case but sure it was with samsung's older phones (after half a year to a year, they slowed down significantly). A phone with a clean android doesn't do it.
Keep in mind I don't play games and my main camera is 5D III. I shoot to edit @ high quality (for me high quality means top photos from 1X.com or 500px). Smartphones are not there yet so I don't waste time taking average photos which don't have 14 bit raws with a lot of information in them for editing (not that 5D III is very good compared to modern cameras, but still a lot better than smartphones ;)).

I use my smartphone to save time/read. The key for me was to block all distracting software and notifications (time wasters - got hundreds blocked notifications per day, lol). So if you can't get/don't want to have an old phone, just block all the apps you think are wasting your time and definitely block unnecessary notifications.