One person's eyes, vis-a-vis search results, are an absolute drop in the ocean and never indicative of how the actual system works or the common experience of an end-user. "Look how they're censoring us" can be anything from explicit policy to user-specific configuration based on past history to an unexpected consequence of other features minimizing access to some unrelated data to the information being shared on a site that is also acting as an active persistent threat to a datacenter or storage / processing cluster dropping offline for a few hours.
If one trusts screenshots and videos because Mark Dice shared them, it's an appeal to (bad) authority. If one tries to armchair-analyze them without a lot of both grounding in the space and insider knowledge, one is extremely likely to arrive at untrue conclusions not only about the motivations of the people operating the system but the actual behavior of the system itself.
In Dice's case, regarding demonetization, if I were to wild-ass guess from glancing at his content: YouTube doesn't display the "dislike" signal any more, but it still consumes the signal as both algorithm sampling and a soft-trigger for manual review (and potentially an auto-trigger for demonetize-now-review-later). And the "Report" button is still there, and there are no consequences for reporting videos that are later decided to not be TOS violations (that I'm aware of).
Dice's problems can be explained by the kind of simple brigading that happens to controversial figures all the time. In terms of monetization, YouTube is a very (small-c) conservative platform, and lots of people from all sides of the political aisle have been migrating away from it, not because of its political bias, but because it's a damn slot machine for anyone trying to make a living.
(TBF: Google et. al. could possibly minimize a lot of this controversy by being far more transparent about the special sauce. OTOH, I don't know in the current political climate if that would be useful because I don't know if their explanations would be believed. "Who are you going to believe, Google, or your lying eyes", right?)
One person's eyes, vis-a-vis search results, are an absolute drop in the ocean and never indicative of how the actual system works or the common experience of an end-user. "Look how they're censoring us" can be anything from explicit policy to user-specific configuration based on past history to an unexpected consequence of other features minimizing access to some unrelated data to the information being shared on a site that is also acting as an active persistent threat to a datacenter or storage / processing cluster dropping offline for a few hours.
If one trusts screenshots and videos because Mark Dice shared them, it's an appeal to (bad) authority. If one tries to armchair-analyze them without a lot of both grounding in the space and insider knowledge, one is extremely likely to arrive at untrue conclusions not only about the motivations of the people operating the system but the actual behavior of the system itself.
In Dice's case, regarding demonetization, if I were to wild-ass guess from glancing at his content: YouTube doesn't display the "dislike" signal any more, but it still consumes the signal as both algorithm sampling and a soft-trigger for manual review (and potentially an auto-trigger for demonetize-now-review-later). And the "Report" button is still there, and there are no consequences for reporting videos that are later decided to not be TOS violations (that I'm aware of).
Dice's problems can be explained by the kind of simple brigading that happens to controversial figures all the time. In terms of monetization, YouTube is a very (small-c) conservative platform, and lots of people from all sides of the political aisle have been migrating away from it, not because of its political bias, but because it's a damn slot machine for anyone trying to make a living.
(TBF: Google et. al. could possibly minimize a lot of this controversy by being far more transparent about the special sauce. OTOH, I don't know in the current political climate if that would be useful because I don't know if their explanations would be believed. "Who are you going to believe, Google, or your lying eyes", right?)