You made an accusation and I am just asking you the simple courtesy of backing it up. I don't know if I called you an anti-Semite or not, so how can you show me I am wrong? I also don't know the context, maybe you wrote something that revealed yourself to be one.
So is that a "no" to putting $10 in the tip jar, Sweet Lou? I stated a fact. I.e.: "Would you please point to where I called you an anti-Semite? I thought so." --Sweet Lou Yes, I stated the same in a previous post. You can't remember when you call people "anti-semite." I guess you'll never know. . . .
Lou has a process bro... Take your quote.... assume the worst about you and project it onto how he interprets what you're saying... he then changes what you said... then he responds in a victorious manner because he's changed what he is responding to into a strawman.... usually this involves calling you racist and telling you you're a racist... and than calling you a racist....
Dude, put up the $10 or not. How about this: if you called me "anti-semitic," you pay $10 into the tip jar. If you didn't call me "anti-semitic," I'll pay $1000 into the tip jar.
There will be no tip jar bet of any kind. I don't trust what you are doing here at all. If you want to show where I wrongly accused you of something, do it. If not, stfu. It's really that simple.
I called you a coward earlier. That is a fact, not an opinion. And you know how you got into this position of being publicly exposed as a coward? Because you call people "anti-semite" so often that you can't even remember it.
The only coward here is you - as you are exposing yourself to be someone who makes false unsubstantiated accusations. If I called you an anti-semite, you certainly deserved it.
Hahahahahaha! This is awesome Dude!!!!!! Thank you. Exposedddddddddddddddddddd You are dishonest, and you are pro-war at the same time. You debase important words like "anti-semite" by spewing them carelessly. You think someone "deserves" to be called an anti-semite if he's an a-hole, in your opinion. You are just a blue version of a MAGA Fox dude.
Where have I "spewed" anti-semite carelessly? You make accusations but do not back it up. This cry for attention will not do anything for you. At this point, since you have no evidence of me doing anything to wrong you, I will ignore you from here on out. I hope that you find some peace in your life.
Pro-war, lying "liberal" gets his ass kicked, runs away. Has an opportunity to make me put $1000 in the tip jar and prove I'm an anti-semite, but is afraid to do so. Coz it's not about showing the truth to everyone, it's about feeling personal comfort when you daily post unsubstantiated claims for the blue team on a message board.
It was only a matter of time before someone researched what was obvious to most regular youtube users... so bump on this thread. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/28/you...rithm-discourages-radicalism-researchers.html Examining millions of YouTube recommendations over the course of a year, two researchers have determined that the platform in fact combats political radicalization. The researchers said that, as of late 2019, YouTube’s recommendation algorithm appears to be designed to benefit mainstream media and cable news content over independent YouTube creators. The study, which published on Tuesday, also says that YouTube’s algorithm favors left-leaning and politically neutral channels.
Maybe true based on this study, but I can only speak to my experience. I simply cannot go on YouTube without the site constantly thinking my algorithm believes I'm the ideal profile to subscribe to Prager U, or the Epoch Times. I mostly go on youtube to watch HBO show recaps, movie reviews, how to fix things on an F150, NBA/Rockets stuff, and music software tutorials. I don't know how the hell that screams right wing nutjob, but something is up with YouTubes algorithm at least for me. My guess is the truth is Prager U, and Epoch times, etc. might just have the most money to put the most amount of ads on the sight. So even if the algorithm doesn't align users to the content they align to, there's just too much volume to filter out. So while people from the Right like yourself scream at the top of your lungs that YouTube and bias are mean to Right wingers, you might not be addressing the main issue for folks like myself thinking the exact opposite... which is how they deal with volume with excess spending on political disinformation. Which is probably a bigger problem than the algorithm.
Well, this study is only AFTER the fact, not before it. It was a problem even Youtube addressed earlier in the year and they have been very aggressive either outright removing hateful content or just making sure that it is harder to bump into. The OP was about BEFORE Youtube made these changes, not after. Before, it was a fact, a fact that even youtube admitted was a problem and addressed. There is also the point that the 'researcher' is clearly stating his bias...probably not a good idea but whatever works for him I guess.
