I wish the BBC would publish their whole archive through YT. The few things that they do put up are often so mind expanding whether it's Berty Russel, The Beatles, or some cracking Scottish chap going for a bike ride with a bottle of whisky.
I wish the BBC would publish their whole archive through YT. The few things that they do put up are often so mind expanding whether it's Berty Russel, The Beatles, or some cracking Scottish chap going for a bike ride with a bottle of whisky.
Search results are also non-exhaustive and biased towards recent videos as noted in this study https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.11727
Basically many videos can no longer be discovered if you don't have a url to the video or the channel, and the algorithm doesn't recommend it
Wait...
The more likely explanation is that Google doesn't want YouTube to be crawled, which gives them a massive moat for AI training
e.g this will return videos published in that time range with a duration longer than 2m
cat videos after:2014-01-01 before:2014-12-31 >2m
[edit] - the duration doesn't remove shorts I think there's just no shorts published in that time range.
I've seen that one!
When I looked it up, turns out I've seen it too!
Grady Smith published an investigative video titled "This TikTok Girl Band Ruined My Life" on October 18, 2022. The project focuses on Taylor Red, a group of triplet sisters with red hair who originally started as a traditional country band. Smith's video explores their transition from serious musicians to creators of surreal, fast-paced TikTok and YouTube content that appears specifically designed to capture the attention of toddlers and children.> I didn't a single thing about that I find there pretty much daily.
Rarely(never?) have I found new knowledge on youtube, however its a great source of joy/emotions/slop.
I'm searching Google trying to figure out what you're talking about but not getting any meaningful results.
Barely literate workers in 3rd world countries then went on a mass "moderation" spree deleting anything that might even remotely be considered controversial
Videos with millions of views were delisted overnight and the associated channels received community standards violation strikes
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/ads-shown-isis... )
I have de-lurked because I can actually contribute to this. I am almost positive that what this is referring to is the time ISIS/ISIL (as it was still sometimes referred to then) uploaded the first video of one of their hostages (a kidnapped journalist?) being beheaded on YouTube. It would have been between 2013 and 2017 inclusive.
Advertising was in full swing on youtube with household names like Pepsi and McDonalds advertising regularly on youtube. BUT ads weren't restricted to certain types of videos then... i don't know if you were paying attention to world events then but ISIS was always in the news and when they released the beheading video it was linked EVERYWHERE. so of course when people went to go and watch a gruesome beheading, before or after it played they would see "da da da da da, I'm loving it".
There was a brief but MASSIVE public outrage against any company whose advertisements were involved, because people thought these companies were endorsing ISIS and beheadings. They didn't understand that the advertisers were paying Youtube for coverage but had no say in exactly what videos recevied what ads. They just blamed the companies they saw in connection with the video. As damage control, these major companies of course instantly pulled all ads from running on youtube and pointed the finger at YouTube, LOUDLY. Youtube lost a substantial amount of revenue and reputation pretty much overnight. Probably in less than 24 hrs. To repair their own reputation and become an attractive and reliable investment for advertisers asap, YouTube immediately took measures to prevent this occurring again. Thus was the first purge.
I do not remember what other measures or standards were originally but they've changed over the years since. Most of the people talking about its rollon effects were youtubers talking about how it affected them personally in youtube videos, with vague or dramatic titles, which is why you would not find many results on google. They didnt want google to find them and see them criticising them and take their videos down too. I do not think the cottage industry we now have around influencers and content creation, including networking and news, had really gotten off the ground then, so nobody that i can think of would have been systematically documenting it in a written text-searchable form. Thus, no google presence.
It's really scary to me that such a major shaping event in our online lives and thus our culture has gone largely undocumented except through videos which people delist, delete, or get copyright struck down, all the time.
Tldr: Isis has a substantial share in the blame for ruining youtube. Isis is still going.
Did you ever try? There are experts in many fields posting about all kinds of stuff in there, from professional knowledge, to the most mainstream of hobbies, to very obscure stuff.
I suspect you are not looking very hard. I have learned a tremendous amount about everything from stone cutting to metalworking to welding to Kalman filters to linear algebra. There is a lot out there. The main annoyance I have is keeping AI slop out of my feed so that I can instead learn from genuine experts. There is a huge amount out there.
This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3emFAf3jqQQ for example is from 15 years ago with 102 views right now.
(Not to mention reputational risk, which is why so many episodes of Top Of The Pops are hidden)
Right now it's ruining it's own content by overoptimizing for engagement slop. Making the creators dumber and consumers poorer, limiting ad growth in the long term.
The content is one of humani .... oh it is all of ... oh its in the hands of ... a commercial company renowned for adverts.
Is there not a better place for human creativity than ... Google? Should my TV license fee fund Google?
Fuck off (hyperbolically)!
As opposed to governments renowned for colonizing half the world, destroying countless cultures, committing genocide in living memory?
Yes. Private companies are capable of the same, with addition of having profit as a sole purpose of existence.