• yamanii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    10 months ago

    For real, this algorithm is making people talk in a funny way to discuss anything, I cringe whenever someone has to say “unalive” or the video goes to the bottom of the feed.

      • orrk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        it’s not newspeak, it might be euphemisms but the meaning of what is being said is alive and well, the major hallmark of newspeak is to limit the ability to convey ideas via conversation

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          the major hallmark of newspeak is to limit the ability to convey ideas via conversation

          Slowly constricting the number of words that can be publicly spoken does work us toward that end. Folks who think they’re cleverly sidestepping the latest hurdle are only getting corralled deeper into the pen.

        • stingpie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          10 months ago

          To be precise, newspeak does function by a direct reduction of vocabulary. Instead, newspeak works by expanding the number of meanings a single word can have, so that every sentence can be interpreted as supportive of the party, and the ‘grammatically correct’ meaning of the sentence is the supportive interpretation.

          The closest approximation of newspeak in English is the sentence “That didn’t work, did it?” If you respond “Yes,” that can be interpreted as “Yes, you are correct, that didn’t work.” And if you reply “No,” that can’t be interpreted as “No, that didn’t work.”

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          That was the end goal of Newspeak, but it hadn’t been achieved. It was a slow process.

          You could argue this is what they’re doing, training people to talk in a sterilised way. That it would become so normalised that anybody trying to speak normally would be dismissed as cringey or whatever. All to the benefit of advertisers.

          Maybe that’s a huge leap, but I think that was the gist of what they meant.

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            avoiding certain words does not create newspeak, but rather the inability to use a limited set of words outside a given context, circumventing speech restrictions is arguably the least newspeak thing possible, as it basically makes any attempt at new speak impossible.

          • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Adapting language to bypass censorship is very much not Newspeak

            It’s quite literally the opposite of Newspeak, an artificial language designed to constrict speech and prevent the spread of complex ideas.

  • mononomi@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Is there a community for the weirdest ads? I have a whole screenshot collection

  • smeg@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’d love all of my content to be unsuitable for advertisers! Remember when posting on corponet to add something like this to the end of all your posts:

    The products featured below have been known to cause users unexpected diarrhoea

    • IndiBrony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think unsuitable for advertisers is a win-win, you take up more of their storage space, costing them money, and you get to post what the fuck you want!

      • lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        Except when they deem it unsuitable for advertisers, they still run ads on the video, they just don’t pay the creator so Google gets 100% of the ad money

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    No monetization from YouTube. Those with direct sponsorships and/or patreon subscribers or other donators probably make more off those other means of generating income than what Google AdSense pays out. Especially when they constantly change the rules of what can get you demonetized.

  • k-rad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I hate YouTube and everything about influencer culture. Peertube is our best hope against it

    • doctorcrimson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      I haven’t tried alternatives since Odysee, seems like a “decentralized” platform without racism and crypto scams isn’t possible at the moment.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Always has been.

      Remember to buy merch from your favourite monetized socialist because that’ll sure change things!

      All ideology is a scam. Maybe we should think for ourselves?

  • 𝕯𝖎𝖕𝖘𝖍𝖎𝖙@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Youtube took down a video of a cop abusing a child. they said it was child endangerment. They’re not wrong but also this is a legal issue, that was a man of the law. This should be shared far and wide.

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    The advertisers: HEY KIDS, WANT SOME FAPPIN FURRY GACHAPON?? (dark patterns for skipping ad)