Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Michael's avatar

The important part of this story (in my opinion) is that, if you're Carlson or Maddow at a legacy news outlet, YouTube lets you fling your "not to be taken seriously" opinion far and wide, and eagerly promotes it to anyone who ever clicked on an actual news segment.

But if you're a small or independent voice, YouTube reserves the right to "fact check" you (conveniently sourced from a legacy news outlet), block your content, and issue you a strike. Three strikes and you're permanently banned, while Maddow and Carlson gleefully continue to roll up millions of views from their not serious opinions, even though they are broadcast through a serious news banner, which actually makes it far harder for a reasonable person to discern news from opinion.

Simply put, one content standard if you have massive advertising money, another standard if you're a regular schlub.

Expand full comment
Tooran's avatar

Dear Glenn

Thank you for fighting for the truth and providing us with it.

While I believe in freedom of speech, conning people is not part of it.

Con artists such as Rachel Madow, Cummo, and the like who are cashing on the people ‘s trusts vested in them , are nothing but bunch of charlatans who are invading the news world.

We need true journalists like you now more than ever.

Keep up the good job.

With tremendous respects to you and all those like you.

Expand full comment
593 more comments...

No posts