YouTube strips Universal and Sony of 2 billion fake views(dailydot.com)
dailydot.com
YouTube strips Universal and Sony of 2 billion fake views
http://www.dailydot.com/news/youtube-universal-sony-fake-views-black-hat/
7 comments
Do you mean literally equal, or approximately equal? I can see there being high view counts for K-pop music videos in the Middle Eastern and African countries, where it K-pop gained popularity as a credible alternative to Western entertainment, which may be too sexualized for the socially conservative sensibilities in those countries. America's military aggression in that part of the world hasn't done Western entertainment any favors either.
> where it K-pop gained popularity as a credible alternative to Western entertainment, which may be too sexualized for the socially conservative sensibilities in those countries.
I doubt that's the reason: K-pop is pretty sexualized. It's also very big on objectifying women and enforcing unrealistic expectations of beauty.
I doubt that's the reason: K-pop is pretty sexualized. It's also very big on objectifying women and enforcing unrealistic expectations of beauty.
I would disagree. Although some entertainers have been pushing the limits in the last year or two, on the whole, things are quite restrained.
> It's also very big on objectifying women and enforcing unrealistic expectations of beauty.
This is not exactly the same thing as blatant visual sexualization, as seen in American entertainment. However, it is definitely an issue with K-pop and South Korean society in general.
> It's also very big on objectifying women and enforcing unrealistic expectations of beauty.
This is not exactly the same thing as blatant visual sexualization, as seen in American entertainment. However, it is definitely an issue with K-pop and South Korean society in general.
A New Yorker piece argued that K pop was much less sexualized than its Japanese and American counterparts, to the point that the music stars themselves have to live a pretty straight edge life while in the spotlight
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/08/121008fa_fact_...
Right, many of the entertainment agencies have "dating bans" that often last until the artists are in their late 20s. This is the exact opposite of what's going on with someone like Taylor Swift - a new guy every couple of months. In America, the fans take an interest in that, or at least don't discourage it. And they eat up the songs that are based on her relationships. In Korea, an artist would be crucified for acting like that.
Eh, the dating bans are because fans expect their idols to be "pure" and "virgin"; the thought of them being with a man ruins that image and can even spark outrage from the community (mostly consisting of very obsessed 20s-to-middle-aged men.) It's not so much about being socially conservative as it is ruining a bunch of guys' fantasies because women should be "pure."
And a lot of K-pop songs have to do with relationships— just not actual ones.
And a lot of K-pop songs have to do with relationships— just not actual ones.
>I can see there being high view counts for K-pop music videos in the Middle Eastern and African countries, where it K-pop gained popularity as a credible alternative to Western entertainment, which may be too sexualized for the socially conservative sensibilities in those countries.
Eh, say what? K-pop is even more sexualized than 90% of western music videos.
Plus, nobody much cares about K-pop in the Middle East and Africa. Maybe a tiny 0.1% minority.
Eh, say what? K-pop is even more sexualized than 90% of western music videos.
Plus, nobody much cares about K-pop in the Middle East and Africa. Maybe a tiny 0.1% minority.
So now if I want to get someone's video taken down, I just need to buy them some extra views?
Cool!
Cool!
Or flag it and wait for YouTube to take it down, which will take ages if it happens
If you can afford to do it on this scale, there are probably better things you can do with your time and money.
And then the owner reupload it again, until you get broke for doing such silly things. And of course the video owner will vlog about it and YouTube will decide that they are just going to decrease the views counter.
This kinds of countermeasures generalizations based on single incidents always struck me as rather silly.
This kinds of countermeasures generalizations based on single incidents always struck me as rather silly.
So, let me get this straight. A typical YouTube channel can have its video suspended if it violates the "viewcount policy." However, when a not so typical YouTube channel owned by Universal or Sony, who are responsible for sending out DMCA takedowns, violates the same policy all they get is a drop in views? Oh how the corporations run everything. This is really really great, Google.
No, if I read it right, they got their videos removed too.
"UMG, which had long held a heavy hand in YouTube operations, now only boasts five videos on its YouTube channel"
"Sony's page, by comparison, is currently empty."
"UMG, which had long held a heavy hand in YouTube operations, now only boasts five videos on its YouTube channel"
"Sony's page, by comparison, is currently empty."
Apparently these recommendations are "just for me": Brazilian author goes topless to fight book piracy, Cam girl's emotional reaction to trolling goes viral, Half-naked daughter helps Dad sell 1977 Datsun on eBay. Each with an illicit photo.
Is there a more reputable source, perhaps?
Is there a more reputable source, perhaps?
Youtube seems to be pushing these recommendations on me as well.
The funny thing is that "normal" recommended videos are usually preceded by the message "Recommended for you because you watched ..." on youtube's home page. The suggestive recommendations, however, are preceded by a simple, mysterious "Recommended for you".
The funny thing is that "normal" recommended videos are usually preceded by the message "Recommended for you because you watched ..." on youtube's home page. The suggestive recommendations, however, are preceded by a simple, mysterious "Recommended for you".
Which makes PSY hitting a billion all the more impressive http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0
Didn't read the article - but was there revenue share related to these views, or maybe just being higher up in ratings for being most popular?
I wondered about the revenue sharing for a bit before realizing Google didn't take a financial hit from the fake views. If anything, they profited. It's the advertisers who took any hit by paying for ad space that was only seen by bots.
That would show worse ROI then though, which looks bad on Google.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'd certainly be interested in seeing some numbers on view inflation on those videos.