Weaponizing the internet?

[Jackal65]

As you lot all know my kids started to use YouTube less and stopped me from paying for YouTube premium.

They did this after a popular creator started to put their content under "members only section". and by the looks of things it backfired but that is not the point of today's post.

YouTube's content creators started screaming as their view count dropped heavily. There are many claims and reasons around this but what stood out to me was the weaponization of the algorithm and the weaponization of the so called "internet of things" Governments in general are extremely slow to stop businesses from doing strange things like putting advertisements on stuff like phones, computers and anything with a screen.

A bit of history, part of why I started developing android software and building my own interfaces was because of advertisements. I got tired to watch an advert before I can use I peace of software. Sure I can pay for a monthly subscription but $5 adds up fast when you have 10 apps all looking to also make $5 US. The advertisements are aggressive because they need to make money.

I build my own APPs including "smart home" type applications. I got gatvol to wait 30seconds to 5 minutes before I can use what I own. I made a few posts about a room with thousands of phones doing whatever they do and those phones obviously view the advertisements as part of the way they milk money out of the system.

So in YouTube's infinite wisdom they decided that the person using add blocking should not be counted? But the person not using add block is an actual user? so all these devices are counted as actual users?



But the person doing the add blocker isn't to be seen as human?

Can you all see the dead logic here?

Now technically these farms are illegal even in South Africa. Or rather this is what AI had to say.



The question I now put before you lot that I know, knows technology, can see a train smash a mile away.

1. Is algorithms weaponized against both the content creator and the viewer? By attacking the content creator's income they now put pressure on the viewer.
2. Should advertisers ask these platform's how the hell are finding people with add blocker but can't figure out a bot-farms.?
3. Is this psychological manipulation to put a human being in a financially crippling situation to change another human beings mind?
4. 

Did YouTube took their content creators hostage, threaten them with their livelihood if people keep on using privacy browser or add blockers?

I am just an old ****ing nobody that still have my vinyl record collection. I still believe the best content is the content I have in a physical format. DVD's vinyl records and physical books.

 

[FiestaST]

 

[RedViking]

View attachment 1853776

The post examines how digital platforms, particularly YouTube, may be manipulating both creators and viewers through monetization strategies and algorithmic design. It points out a contradiction where users who employ ad blockers are excluded from view counts, while bot farms that generate fake views are counted as legitimate. This raises concerns about the logic and ethics behind how platforms measure engagement.


It also critiques the aggressive nature of advertising across devices and apps, noting how subscriptions and delays interfere with user autonomy. The broader question is whether algorithms are being used to pressure creators financially, thereby influencing viewer behavior. The dynamic is likened to psychological manipulation, with creators caught in a system that threatens their livelihood if audiences choose privacy tools. The post ends with a nostalgic preference for physical media, such as vinyl records, DVDs, and books, as a refuge from digital exploitation.

 

[FiestaST]

The post explores how digital platforms—particularly YouTube—may be manipulating both creators and viewers through monetization tactics and algorithmic design. It highlights the paradox where users employing ad blockers are excluded from view counts, while bot farms generating fake views are counted as legitimate. This raises concerns about the logic and ethics behind platform metrics.


It also critiques the aggressive nature of advertising across devices and apps, noting how subscriptions and delays interfere with user autonomy. The broader question posed is whether algorithms are being weaponized to pressure creators financially, thereby influencing viewer behavior. There's a suggestion that this dynamic resembles psychological manipulation, with creators caught in a system that threatens their livelihood if audiences prioritize privacy tools. The post closes with a nostalgic preference for physical media—vinyl, DVDs, and books—as a refuge from digital exploitation 1.

DawieAI is that you?!

 

[RedViking]

DawieAI is that you?!

If platforms can detect ad blockers with precision, but somehow fail to spot bot farms inflating views and ad revenue, then it’s not a technical limitation, it’s a choice. And that choice tells you everything about who these systems are built to serve.

This isn’t just creators losing income. It’s viewers being nudged, guilted, and manipulated into dropping privacy tools so platforms can keep the ad dollars flowing. Meanwhile, creators are pressured to lock content behind paywalls or memberships just to survive, knowing full well it alienates their audience, never mind dumbing them down and catering for a tiktok generation with a less-than 30 second attention span.

The system pits creators against viewers, while the platform sits back and profits from the fallout. That’s not broken design, that’s engineered tension.

So here’s the real question: if the algorithm rewards fake engagement and punishes privacy, what kind of internet are we building? And how long before creators start pushing back—not just against viewers, but against the platforms themselves?

 

[Jean Claude Vaaldamme]

OP is one of those that want everything for free.
Seeing all your posts about this topic, it is obvious that you like Youtube and the content. But you do not want to watch ads that pay the creators and you also do not want to sub for ad free YT.

 

[Jackal65]

OP is one of those that want everything for free.
Seeing all your posts about this topic, it is obvious that you like Youtube and the content. But you do not want to watch ads that pay the creators and you also do not want to sub for ad free YT.

Yea, sure,

 

[RedViking]

This isn’t just unsustainable, it’s cultural cannibalism. Platforms chew through creators, spit out formats, and move on. And we call it innovation.

So maybe the real weapon isn’t the algorithm. Maybe it’s the illusion that playing the game is the same as building a career.

That said, most of them have a lot more money than I can dream to have as a commentator.

 

[Jackal65]

Short-form content can harm developing minds by reducing attention spans, promoting superficial thinking, and increasing risk of overstimulation or addiction. It may disrupt critical thinking and emotional regulation, especially in children and teens. Moderation and balanced media consumption are key. What did content platforms do about this? Force their creators to create short-form content.

How evil must a ****ing company get?

I pay for my content, I buy my music as Vinyl records. This is not about "spending money" this is about a platform actively attacking humanity and they should be regulated. I mean who the **** gave them the right to just do whatever the **** they want in our homes?

Just because I own an android phone doesn't ****ing give them the right to track, me push **** on my device and actively try to remove my privacy. I am actively looking at phones that are degoogled. I started using Bing as search engine because Google ****ed us over with the shopping tab.

This is hot bout getting **** for free, It is about stopping companies from owning my ****ing life. I write about this **** because I know it is important.

 

[IamNoone]

Short-form content can harm developing minds by reducing attention spans, promoting superficial thinking, and increasing risk of overstimulation or addiction. It may disrupt critical thinking and emotional regulation, especially in children and teens. Moderation and balanced media consumption are key. What did content platforms do about this? Force their creators to create short-form content.

How evil must a ****ing company get?

I pay for my content, I buy my music as Vinyl records. This is not about "spending money" this is about a platform actively attacking humanity and they should be regulated. I mean who the **** gave them the right to just do whatever the **** they want in our homes?

Just because I own an android phone doesn't ****ing give them the right to track, me push **** on my device and actively try to remove my privacy. I am actively looking at phones that are degoogled. I started using Bing as search engine because Google ****ed us over with the shopping tab.

This is hot bout getting **** for free, It is about stopping companies from owning my ****ing life. I write about this **** because I know it is important.

I agree. I limit what is available to Google.

But even if we do disable location services, stop using chrome(disabled) , don't use Google maps (disabled)etc. I disabled most of their apps, but can we really say they are not still listening?

Turn off the microphone for Google assistant and then say "hey Google". I don't know if they fixed it, but it used to show a notification that the microphone was not active, or something to that affect.

Solution? Flash the phone with another OS?