June 15, 2019 - Slightly Offensive - Elijah Schaffer
43:13
The Mainstream Media Hijacked Youtube | Guest: Mr. Reagan | Ep 15
What the hell is going on right now at Google? They literally don't care about small creators and I know why so I sat down with Mr. Reagan to talk about the seriousness of how big tech companies have taken over Youtube from independent creators to try to salvage their dying businesses. The big networks are losing viewers, us small guys are gaining viewers, so just think about it, why not crush the competition and go after the little guys who create better content. We show how this is happening and give the evidence of why we believe this is the real issue facing conservative creators today ⇩iTunes, Google Play, Spotify ⇩ iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/slightly-offens-ve-uncut/id1450057169 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7jbVobnHs7q8pSRCtPmC41?si=iwqsjNOhQGGYgQE8_1bfjg Google Play: Search "Slightly Offens*ve Uncut" ⇩ FOLLOW Mr. Reagan ⇩ Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCf1EWeQ7DefD6Ds3KdeQ-uQ ⇩ KEEP INDEPENDENT MEDIA & JOURNALISM ALIVE ⇩ ➤ PAYPAL: https://paypal.me/slightlyoffensive ➤ VENMO: https://venmo.com/Elijah-Schaffer ➤ PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/slightlyoffensive ➤ MEMBERSHIPS: http://slightlyoffensive.com/donate/ _________________________________________________________________ ⇩ BOOKINGS & INQUIRIES ⇩ ➤ EMAIL: ELIJAH@SLIGHTLYOFFENSIVE.COM _________________________________________________________________ ⇩ SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS ⇩ ➤ INSTAGRAM https://www.instagram.com/elijahschaffer/ https://www.instagram.com/officialslightlyoffensive/ ➤ TWITTER: https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer ➤ FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/officialslightlyoffensive ______________________________________________________________________________________ ⇩ OTHER WAYS TO SUPPORT SLIGHTLY OFFENS*VE ⇩ ➤ MERCHANDISE: http://slightlyoffensive.com #vox #mrreagan #blazemedia Links to Articles: https://www.ft.com/content/482dc54a-1594-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/how-youtubes-algorithm-distorts-truth https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/business/youtube-remove-extremist-videos.html https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-get-woke-go-broke/ Slightly Offensive is powered by Blaze Media and is an engaging multi media channel that interviews a wide variety of conservative, centrist, and liberal people around California about their views on pop culture, politics, and the world. We have had great guests like Black Mic, Nuance Bro, Fleccas Talks, Owen Shroyer, Kaitlin Bennett, Gavi Kollin, Will Witt Avi Yemini, and other street reporters as well as guests like Sydney Watson, An0maly and guest appeared on shows like CBS, Fox, NBC, KTLA, Jesse Lee Peterson, Gavin McInnes, Alex Jones, The News and Why it Matters, and so much more! We've also been featured in Buzzfeed, Washington Post, The Daily Wire and more!
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdItYufWwXA
Uploader: Slightly Offens*ve
Welcome back to Slightly Offensive with your favorite gay black woman, me, Elijah Schaefer.
I'm here in the studio today for a special episode.
I'm joined by our guest, Mr. Reagan, who also has a first name, Chris.
Welcome to the show.
Glad to be here.
Mr. Reagan is a fellow content creator, and make sure you check out his channel with the links below.
Also, I want to let you know that if you guys don't like watching the video version or you have a long commute and you want something to listen to other than the staticky radio, make sure you check out the links below to find this podcast downloadable on iTunes, Spotify, and Google Play Store.
I know I'm the kind of person that always likes to listen to something sometimes without video.
If you're the kind of person who needs visuals and watching the videos, then this might suffice.
But make sure you share, like, and subscribe it.
And always listen in every single week.
These episodes drop every Friday at 12 o'clock on YouTube and 6 a.m. Pacific Standard Time on iTunes, Spotify, and Google Play.
Well, first of all, Mr. Regan, welcome to the show.
But anyways, I mean, okay, today's topic is really simple.
I have this theory going on right now that the mainstream media, of course, I don't want to use the term M.S. M because we know that automatically gets you zucked and flagged.
Yeah, so as much as you guys might hate InfoWars or people might not like them, they've been super helpful in providing information to us to help us to stay above censorship.
unidentified
Oh, wow.
And I've been really appreciative, I mean, I, I- Why does everybody like you so much?
So, you could have been just maybe, maybe if the Buddhists are right and you luck out and you get born as some better looking person, then good for you.
I hope that we aren't, there's no such thing as reincarnation because if it's true based on your good works, I'm going to get reborn as like a house fly or some piece of crap.
Speaking of ugly people, Oprah Winfrey's on the front page of our first article, but I'll wait to get to that one.
So, you know, today we're talking about, honestly, as you probably saw in the title, the mainstream media takeover of YouTube.
And for people that are going to start saying, oh, this is a conspiracy, what are you talking about?
I like to say that the only difference between a conspiracy and truth is when you have the evidence.
And thank God we've brought some evidence with us today, something that a lot of people have forgotten to do when they're making a case, including the New York Times, which we'll talk about later.
But the mainstream media is in a state of peril.
Everybody knows that.
Their viewership is so far down that Ad Week, which I don't even know if that would be considered reputable, but it was a reputable article in my opinion.
They said that CNN's ratings this time, this year, are one-third lower than they were last year.
And obviously, we know because they talked about it.
I mean, people would say Fox News might, I know, you know, honestly, I was going to use a Fox News source for this one, but I realized people are like, you can't use Fox News as a source to get against CNN.
The weird thing was, they knew from the beginning.
I just played this on my show the other day.
There's a video of one of the producers saying, no, we know this is BS.
We're just doing it for ratings.
And Van Jones also said, yeah, we know it's nothing.
We just were doing it because people like to watch CNN.
They like to watch that.
But I actually have a different theory, which is that it's not just for ratings.
It was.
But their idea was, I mean, both the Democrat politicians and CNN and the other mainstream media types, they all knew there was nothing there.
They were using this as an excuse to investigate Trump so they could find something else.
And once they found that something else, the collusion thing wouldn't have mattered because this would have become the story and everybody would have forgiven them for lying about the collusion because the ends justify the means.
And the truth is, it's not just that their views are going down, but where are the viewers going?
They're going to people like you and me.
They're going to independent sources.
Meaning, we know this because as the ratings are dropping for major networks, the views are rising in YouTube, which is the biggest online media YouTube or like video sharing platform at 5 billion.
If my mom's watching this, I can't go any further.
All right.
But here's the point.
The mainstream media is dying, and they know it.
They're not stupid either.
The American people aren't stupid, but they're not as dumb as we think.
And they realized that young people were going to sites like Vox, like Vice, like BuzzFeed.
And what happened is they started to invest huge amounts of money.
NBC Universal, one of the biggest mainstream media news outlets, I don't know how much even before this, but I know according to the New York Times, they were investing an additional 200 million into BuzzFeed in 2015.
In 2016, they had invested 200 million more into Vox.
And this article here, which is really interesting, states that Vice, BuzzFeed, and Vox were hit by changes in the digital media industry.
And it points out here, I'm not going to get too into this, but if you guys want the links to these sources to read them yourself, they'll be in the description.
Anyways, what's really interesting about this is they say that Vice was supposed to hit revenue of $100 million, and they found this flatlining.
Now, Vice was usually more traditional media outlet.
They relied on traffic to their website towards pushing videos on their own platforms, and they were collapsing.
But what they noticed is that Vox and BuzzFeed didn't get hit as bad as Vice in revenue loss because they had focused a lot of their attention and investment into social media platforms like YouTube.
So the big media, as early as 2015, already saw that the next frontier to compete for ad space was on YouTube.
And they were starting then, but we're starting to see them moving now.
Because what it is, is that they just see this is where the people are.
Therefore, this is where the money's headed.
And so we need to invest.
We need to get onto these platforms.
And I'm not, I personally am not just making this up.
I mean, when you look at this specifically, these media companies are doing everything in their power to push YouTube to not only, which we see recently, we'll get into this article, but to rank their videos higher.
You were mentioning you saw a video about this.
They're trying to get their videos ranked above independent creators in search queries.
I looked for it on my phone before the show, but I couldn't find it.
There was this video.
This guy kind of like lays out the whole YouTube spectrum and where people, you know, how many people are going on trending.
That was it.
That's what I should have looked up.
Trending.
Who gets on trending?
Right.
Who gets on trending?
And the people who get on trending tend to be like MSM type, you know, big companies like Vox, like BuzzFeed, like CNN.
And the people who maybe are getting, you know, way more viewers per video, they don't get on trending because they have a much higher bar to get onto trending.
Right.
And so like a CNN could get like, you know, 14,000 views, 6,000 views on a video.
Suddenly it's trending, right?
Logan Paul gets a million views or something.
And then, you know, he doesn't get on trending.
And why is that?
Why is the bar so different for independent creators than for these like, you know, mainstream outlets?
And this guy, I don't know what his theory was, I don't remember what his theory was exactly why they were doing it, but he was thinking like, okay.
The independent creators, that's the people that made YouTube.
Why are you turning your back on independent creators?
And I would say it's kind of like the mom and pop shop of a local town.
If you have a Walmart, there was always this thing when Walmart kind of blew up.
Walmarts were coming to towns, and then these mom-and-pop shops were disappearing, and leftists were losing their minds.
They were saying, the mom and pop shops, the mom and pop shops.
And, you know, capitalists were saying, well, you know, that happens.
It's not great, but that happens.
You want variety and you want craft stuff.
And now we see craft companies popping up.
But this is now happening virtually, right?
This is happening virtually on YouTube.
And we do, I think, want to protect the smaller voices because we want a variety.
I don't know how much CNN and Vice and Vox and BuzzFeed coming in and kind of stealing the market share from the independent creators is affecting me personally because I have such a different perspective than them that the only people that you really have to steal my viewers are like Fox or Sargon or Crowder or somebody like that.
And I just have to make better videos to compete with them.
I respect all those guys and I wouldn't want to say like, oh, they're stealing my viewers because they're a little bit bigger than me.
It's like, well, of course they're going to get more viewers than I am.
They're bigger than my channel.
Or I'm competing with you, right?
But we just have to compete in terms of making good content, right?
And if you want to mock somebody, I mean, hey, getting burned by someone with special needs, although, which is fine.
I don't care.
Humor's humor.
And that's not a diss on special needs.
I liked you.
I'm putting you on here, right?
It's not just to make you feel good.
But no, like you were saying, I think you kind of might be mistaken, though, because I get what you're saying about, okay, yeah, we're not competing for the same audience, but I think that's what they realize.
And this is what they're cheating.
They noticed that the viewers on YouTube don't really want to watch the mainstream media outlets.
They don't really want them.
They want independent creators.
They come to people for their own voice.
They don't watch one channel and let that channel decide who's on there.
They go to these independent channels that have these personalities.
And so that's why they're trying to manually come in and change the landscape so that forcibly viewers are to watch them.
And so anybody who has an extreme view or a borderline conspiracy theory, they're saying borderline.
Anybody's borderline.
They want to sort of like rubber band you back, right?
So if you go out too far to what they consider to be an extreme, you get rubber band back.
But the thing is, I have a suspicion that their mainstream or their sort of middle of the road is not the same as what like you and I would think would be a reasonable middle, right?
So their middle might be vice or their middle might be Vox or a Vuzzo.
And so big companies traditionally, and I think that this is what confuses people like the CEO of YouTube.
It's like traditionally, like the major, major, big, big, big businesses were kind of beholden to the public in terms of like, well, if the public sees that you're a bad company, they might not actually buy your product and you're going to go out of business.
But now we kind of can specifically target very large groups of the population.
Like Fox gets accused of this, of specifically targeting conservatives, but they get a huge audience just because they target conservatives.
Well, Vice and BuzzFeed do the same thing with progressives, right?
And they can sustain a business model just targeting progressives.
But they're huge, right?
But that doesn't mean that they're responsible because they don't have to be responsible.
They can lie through their teeth, but as long as the progressives accept what they're saying, it's okay.
And then YouTube says, well, they're a big company, so they must be legit, right?
You know, it's this independent guy who's probably like a lunatic because he doesn't have a lot of viewers.
You know, either way, when you look at this, it is still full of shit.
And what they do here on The Guardian is they do what a lot of liberal publications do, where they come in and they use themselves as their own credible sources of why independent creators are dangerous.
My grandparents used to do this because they were strong, like, well, strong leftists for the 80s is different than strong leftists for today, but they used to reinforce their own ideas by talking to each other.
And that's a problem.
If you don't expose yourself to other ideas, then you have to cite the opposition if you want to really reinforce your ideas.
First of all, like The Guardian gives a crap about YouTube and this website that's mostly famous for pushing videos about goo.
Okay, like this is like, this is YouTube.
Secondly, what they do is they talk about how YouTube, they start writing these articles and hit pieces on people.
And they make it seem like they care.
They're like virtue signalers.
We're so concerned for society and for people that we need to attack all the other major large creators.
They even hit Logan Paul in here.
They, of course, eventually get to Alex Jones talking about this scary idea of promoting conspiracy theories.
And they go even further.
Oh, now they're leading people down hateful rabbit holes.
And they come like these beacons of truth out into the world.
And then what they do is then they petition these websites and they go, hey, we're going to get to this.
Look, look at these articles.
This person's a hateful person.
It even says in The Guardian, which is a trusted article, that Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist who leads people down hateful rabbit holes.
And they cite it, but it's like, but what's your evidence?
And no one's more notorious for using basically no evidence than, of course, recently the New York Times, which I know you're doing a video on this coming up.
The Crowder situation is why they published the article.
It doesn't really have anything to do with Crowder.
The New York Times article is essentially the same as the Guardian article, except they use a specific guy who says, Oh, I went too far right, and then it freaked me out, and so I went to the left.
But, you know, how do we say pale-complexioned nationalist?
I don't want to say these words because I feel like really.
Well, you know, okay, so this guy is saying, okay, well, because I watched Stefan Molyneux, then that drove me to some other more extreme people, and that freaked me out.
And now I, you know, I watch these other people like Destiny or this guy named ContraPoints who dresses like a girl and pretends he's a woman.
And yeah, and so he's like, okay, now this is my new thing.
Now, this guy is, and I'm going to say this in my video, but this guy is obviously like, he's not, he's not a confident person.
Everybody who's in the New York Times, that's the issue is they go, look, we found something.
You know, we found our golden egg.
And guess what?
We're going to use this as evidence, but it's not even evidence.
Every publisher and periodical writer knows you can't use anecdotal evidence of a story of some guy as your basis for an entire article that was a front-page article saying, this is why right-wing people should be banned.
Also, this is a bit of like competition.
It's almost like Target putting up signs of why you shouldn't trust products from Walmart.
Okay, you know, I have a weird thing about Walmart.
You don't trust Walmart because even if you live in a black area or Mexican area, you've never seen a white person in your life, which is like Los Angeles.
You never see one.
And then you go into Walmart, and it's like you literally basically have the people they think that are getting radicalized.
It's like every white trash person is in Walmart, and you go, where did you guys come from?
And they pick the one weirdest guy that they can find, the one, the story you don't want to hear about somebody going from the left to the right and then becoming like, you know, whatever.
So let's say you see some black kid rob a liquor store and you say, oh, all black people are, you know, robblickers.
They're all thieves.
That is like a quintessential illustration of racism, right?
Example of racism.
But then to do that with the entirety of conservatism of every YouTuber, right-wing YouTuber on YouTube to say, oh, this guy was an extremist, you know, hateful bigot.
So all right-wing YouTubers are extreme, hateful bigots.
That's a kind of bigotry, right?
You're stereotyping all right-wing.
And it's not even like, it's not like a significant portion of right-wing YouTubers.
So anyway, so this guy, so this guy is, you know, he's a psycho.
But you need people like that so that people like us can make fun of him on our channel and show people how crazy you can get, you know, and to show you what kind of people are out there.
Like, if you really want to show the world that there are these Charlotteville types on YouTube, like show us who they are.
Yeah, don't buy I Love Spitfire because apparently they hate the show, even though I wear them in every show and people always ask me what they are and I send them.
Yes, they do because it's fun to do it, but at least you don't have to see it in such bright light when you're in the operation room because you can do it with nice shade and in style.
He's like, okay, but my point is, is I'm coming at it.
I'm allowed to criticize this stuff.
It gets a lot of views.
But the point is, if you use science, science is hate speech.
And then immigration status, if you make videos critical of illegal immigration and these kinds of things, you'll get flagged as well, which is interesting.
Right now, actually, you can't even use the phrase illegal immigrant or you have to call them undocumented immigrant or you can't even use alien.
I think you can get flagged for alien in the wrong context.
Okay, but anyways, anyways, they're going against it, which is why where I kind of want to bring onto this, YouTube is taking a hit from all this.
I want to read this article.
It's going to be a little boring.
I'm going to read the highlights.
But YouTube's move to promote more so-called authoritative sources.
This move from the mainstream media is actually hurting YouTube.
And it's wiped out $70 billion of Google's value, actually.
According to Ruth Perrat, CFO of Alphabet, said that this decline in ad revenue can be attributed to the issues surrounding YouTube, which we call Daddy YouTube, by the way.
She also suggested that they were willing to miss out on some short-term earnings for the sake of the company's long-term health.
If we rewind the clock to a year ago, it's quite simple to understand what exactly happened to YouTube.
Google implemented several changes to YouTube in the first quarter of 2018.
Algorithms were designed and deployed to stop any harmful content such as conspiracy theories, fake news, and so on from appearing on recommendation feed.
For instance, if there was a bang bang at a school, YouTube would say so many things.
YouTube would recommend you videos about this incident from authoritative sources such as news channels, but would avoid showing you any recommendation of conspiracy theories or more surrounding such incidents.
The mainstream media have been complaining and pushing for YouTube to squash independent creators and to instead favor more mainstream sources.
However, relatively speaking, those mainstream sources like The Guardian and CNN don't interest many YouTube viewers, therefore they have actually lost out on profits.
So you're basically saying that when you have a big company that YouTube tries to artificially inflate their numbers by promoting them more than, say, the independent creators, the YouTube viewers get bored because they're not really interested in that stuff.
They're being pushed that they're not interested.
100%, man.
I mean, it's against YouTube's best interest to do it.
So I think YouTube is conflicted.
At the end of the day, I was looking a little bit into the CEO.
She seems like a nice enough woman.
I think she is a strong leftist.
I mean, her parents are like, you know, both college professors, one's at Stanford.
It's like, okay, you're a college professor at Stanford, you're a leftist.
Let's be real here.
So she's obviously a strong leftist.
I think that she genuinely wants Susan.
I think she genuinely wants to try to help, maybe not get like, say, a New Zealand shooter.
She's trying to avoid a circumstance like that where YouTube helps to radicalize somebody to the point where they're going to be violent.
And I could understand that that's a lot of responsibility to have on your shoulders, being that powerful of a thing.
But what they've been doing, it's not really targeting the dangerous people as much as it needs to.
You're getting a lot of collateral damage.
If you bomb these bad guys and you end up hitting a bunch of villagers, I mean, in war, you say, okay, well, it's collateral damage.
But if you hit one terrorist and you kill 10,000 innocent people, is the collateral damage worth it?
I don't think so.
I think all of the efforts that YouTube have made up until this point in order to try to curtail harmful speech or something that might end up influencing somebody like the New Zealand shooter.
And I read the New Zealand shooters manifesto.
I'm going to talk a lot about that in a little bit.
But there are some people that just want to hurt other people.
And really, what's happening right now with the very, very extreme bigots that go out and shoot Muslims or whatever, people that are not the same color as them or something like that, they're looking for an excuse and the left is giving it to them.
The left is giving it to them by strongly demonizing white people and all this kind of stuff.
They're actually creating that.
It's not Donald Trump isn't, what do they call it?
Empowering white supremacists.
These guys are becoming this way because the left is pushing them toward it.
When you say you're not allowed to talk about certain things, that frustrates people.
When you say that the failings of this group or the shortcomings of this group are not anybody's fault except white people or men or Christians, and you're in those groups and you've not done anything.
Or you're just somebody who's like an innocent bystander in this war of ideas, and you're being basically condemned because of the color of your skin, the things you were born with that you can't help.
It's going to frustrate people.
And most people are going to respond to that with language.
Like you and I respond to it with language.
We have a platform.
The New Zealand shooter didn't have a platform.
He wasn't the kind of charismatic person that could try to change people's minds.
So he just got more and more and more frustrated.
And he might have been a little bit, well, obviously he was crazy, but he might have had some things twisted up in his mind and he wanted to kill people.
That was his solution to problems.
It doesn't make any sense.
If you read the thing, his thinking doesn't make sense.
He wanted to ignite a race war and he thought that that would help to do it.
I don't think there's a race war coming.
People seem to think that.
That's what Charlie Manson.
That's what Charlie Manson thought.
I mean, everybody for some reason thinks that.
To me, that's like a complete insanity, you know.
But some people really think that and they're obsessed with these ideas.
And I don't really think extreme views, blocking extreme views, is the way to go.
I think you should just let people say their piece.
This is just another episode of another podcast of a long idea.
Make sure that you guys continue to think about the things that we are talking about.
Do your own research.
Check out the links below to find the sources that we referenced.
We didn't read a lot, but if you're the reader and you want to go through them and you're a nerd, then all the power to you.
But if you're just a listener and you want to stay tuned, make sure again that you go on to iTunes or Spotify or Google Play and you subscribe to this podcast, which again comes out every single Friday.
It comes out early in the morning before the commutes or during the commutes on Fridays, and the video is released in the afternoon.
This is my guest, Mr. Reagan.
Make sure that you go to his channel and support it as well, not just to be nice and to do what everyone else did, but also because he actually does have really engaging and incredible content.
