Stagnation on youtube

A brief intro:

This time a decade ago, no one had even heard of youtube, nor did the bandwidth really exist for the project.  The emergence of Youtube was unforeseen by, well lets be real, everyone.  Microsoft was left standing, as was Google.  The access of users to cheap video editing equipment, and further simultaneously given access to the vast array of various uploaded media clips led to an explosion of creativity.

     However as time progressed, expectedly those who did well acquired a disproportionate amount of the traffic.  Now, I don’t have the figures, but a comparative handful of users provide the significant lions share of the traffic.  This has had two detrimental effects on youtube.

1)      The forum has lost a significant portion of its vibrancy, in that it used to be that you could come back to youtube in a week or twos time and everything would be different.  This is not true anymore.  You come back in months time and it’s pretty much the exact same people doing exactly the same thing.  It’s no longer really youtube, but the ‘same old-same old’tube.

2)      The barriers to entry are now essentially prohibitively high.  As a few get a large amount of the traffic, the barriers to entry are huge compared to what they were when youtube was relatively a flat and fair forum.  Indeed almost the only way to now establish yourself on youtube is with the help of someone who is already established, or to have an existing audience for whom you start making videos, or to simply have a truck full of cash to throw at the problem.

    So is there a solution to this?  Is there a way that youtube can regain it’s vibrancy?  Well that’s where many minds are better than one and I ask for your take on this.

    The following is my suggestion:  One way to do this which is arguably dead before it starts is by biasing the YT search algorithms against established players.  Now YT will not want to do that on several levels.  Firstly ‘established players’ are the ‘cash cows’, they are the ‘known commodities’ that people come to youtube for.  Secondly of course, those partner would be pretty unhappy having put all that work into establishing a channel merely for YT to come along and decide ‘bad luck fellas, but YT needs more variety’.   It would also send a lousy message about the relationship between media producers and youtube.  Finally of course, who is likely to fill this gap?  Lamentably imitation is easier than innovation and for every youtube ‘celebrity’ there are probably 10 wannabe clones.  Even if youtube were to tweak its search engine, would it really help?

     Maybe a more viable alternative is to create a second ‘pool’ of users.  A ‘youtube hatchery’ so to speak that allows small channels to grow free of the competition of the bigger players (a different front page).  Limit the hatchery to users with less than 10k subscribers or so, and have a separate front page for them.  The environment would allow people to establish themselves on a smaller forum before competing in the full YT forum where currently they get almost no attention.

     Other than that, it looks to me like youtube has matured and hardened into its adult form, never to see significant changes again, or if it does, it will be more akin to glacial speeds!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

50 Responses to “Stagnation on youtube”

  1. Mike Says:

    Where ever there is a free forum, there are those that want to ‘win’ that forum. I think what you’re really critiqueing here is not YouTube, but how competitive atmosphere will ultimately favor the users who have mass appeal.

    While I do agree that it is a problem for people that have focused messages (atheism, enviornmentalism, economics, etc), ultimately many people would prefer to be entertained than informed.

    Take the confrontations you’ve had with DawaFilms, HowTheWorldWorks and VenomFangX for example. Those ‘vs’ videos tend to get a lot more traffic than say your informative videos. The big exception was your ‘Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?’ series which was ultimately a ‘vs’ series anyway… people found your confrontations entertaining.

    Why else would American television be dominated by fighting/sports? This is also why mindless comedies like ‘2 and 1/2 Men’ also do well… when compared to educational programs with exceptions like ‘Mythbusters’… which still blow stuff up anyway!

    It is a shame to see YouTube gradually assimilated by the imposing mass produced and commercialized entertainment industry. However, I feel that such an event was inevitable.

  2. Cephas Borg Says:

    While I do agree that the ‘monolithicity’ of youtube is its biggest weakeness, I don’t think making a youtube/us-tube dichotomy will be the answer.

    I reckon the answer’s (unfortunately) in your intro. It’s the duplicators, the clones, the wannabes, and the sad, lonely ‘commentator tubes’ that now make the vast majority of the noise in the signal-to-noise ratio on youtube.

    aside: youtube doesn’t care what is put on a channel, as long as 1) it doesn’t break any laws that would make Da Management culpable, and 2) they can stick an ad on it. That’s what they’re in the business of, creating money (and covering their arses). That’s the way business works these days, and it’s pointless trying to change that, as you suggested. /aside

    If someone (anyone, big or small) says or creates something interesting (interesting or unique = lots of hits), a crowd of users with great video software – but zero creativity – try to duplicate it, defend it, reverse-engineer it, or try to defame it, immediately. That’s their whole contribution to the community – wanking after someone else has created something cool. That’s what I see. Is that the original point of youtube? Probably, in the back of someone’s minds, where they figured the rest of the community would fix the problem with thumbs down (a feature that’s been thoroughly abused to the point of uselessness).

    Now this doesn’t always happen for everyone – if anyone’s seen the incredible talent in the Portal 2 “Exile, Vilify” competition, you’ll know just how talented and creative many people are – but as a consumer (not producer) of youtube, that’s what I see.

    There are always exceptions, and I think there’s a huge untapped resource for learning (look at gauss guns, induction heating, for example); but these creators are getting lost in the noise.

    My off-the-top-of-my-pointy-little-head ‘answer’ would be to remove all channels with less than 500 subscribers after 2 years. That will remove a significant amount of white noise from the paradigm. It will also allow newcomers (let’s not forget the schoolkids coming up through the ranks today) to see what makes youtube WORK – as opposed to how the Great Unwashed now see youtube as their personal means of attaining notoriety, or whining, copying, or masturbating online.

    In 5 years, if nothing is done, youtube := myspace.

    • ovidius89 Says:

      While I agree with most of what you said, I find your suggestion terrible. If I make very few videos that only my close mates watch and understand then there’s no way I’m ever going to reach 500 or even 50 subs for that matter. Does that mean that my content is bs or “noise” ? No, it might be great for the few people who enjoy it. Your solution (although I understand it was off-the-top-of-your-pointy-little-head) would effectively strike a great blow against the personal users and the small niches, which is exactly what we should protect. Also keep in mind that many channels have almost no growth for extended periods of time only to blow up much later. Not to mention all of the consumers, such as yourself, who probably have no subs and don’t care about it. Why should they lose their channel ?
      I think the best avenue would be, as Thunderf00t suggested, to create a subcategory for the smaller channels, where they wouldn’t be outshined by the same handful of giants.

  3. Anne Have Says:

    You know, I read this piece, and the comments, and it struck me that youtube works exactly like the rest of the internet in this regard.

    I like the hatchery idea. But I can see it fail because people won’t go there. It’s the big things that attract the most people – pretty much like a star or a black hole (depending on your vision on the quality of what attracted those people). People watch the big popular things because if it’s popular, it’s gotta be good – and in quite some instances there is actually some entertainment value in such popular videos, though opinions may vary per video.

    I guess that many people don’t really go to youtube to see a new thing that creators are trying out. They go to youtube to kill some time and have a laugh, or (re)watch news and video clips.

    Wait…remember that thing I said in the start of my post, that it was just like the internet? Scrap that. It’s just like real life 😉 People act like this outside the internet too. Every nifty little niche thing that becomes mainstream works this way.
    Hell, It’s even like how the universe is formed. At first matters is spread more equally, but then all sorts of stuff happens, stars and black holes form, and the universe stabilized with several higher density points and relatively little action.

    • Cephas Borg Says:

      That’s a really apt analogy. The “black hole” mass attraction (grabity?) will suck everyone in, unless they’re willing to expend energy to find the stars outside the event horizon. Meanwhile the black holes just get bigger and blacker… And eventually, they get so large that they become the new material playing field? Hmmmm….

  4. Cephas Borg Says:

    FWIW, the missus just whacked me for being obtuse.

    She says it’s time for the monoliths to uproot themselves and leave the playing field for a wider audience. She thinks youtube IS the nursery/hatchery… But then, she would, she’s a horticulturist.

    Interesting though, considering Phil’s already started to do just that…

  5. Theo Warner Says:

    I absolutely agree… YouTube is not fertile.

  6. imko Says:

    Hi Thunderfoot,

    first of all I would like to suggest a different analogy of youtube. Today, I would say youtube looks more like a rhizome, like in the following picture:

    With big roots representing the big players and vice versa. Let us assume that one big root represent a professional musician, presenting a new piece of music. After a while smaller roots form around it by other nonprofessional musicians covering and interpreting the same piece of music. Same with you. When you, as bigger root, upload a video some others will give a video response etc. So that is my idea behind youtube as a rhizome.

    My suggestion for the future is that the bigger channels should also support smaller ones to keep their status instead depending only on subscriptions etc.? Lets say you and other scientists/atheists or what ever could start a little video competition for people with less than 1000 subscriptions, public voting, offering the first three winners a joint venture for a new video project or so =)

    • Jonas Says:

      I love that idea.

      I’m not the kinda person who publish videos on youtube, but I do follow the atheist movement there (tf, dprjones, c0nc0rance, etc), and if I were to look through my subscriptions I wouldn’t see one new sub that I had added in the last 2-3 years.

      So please, do make a competition, lets get a new face and ideas on the board. Help someone grow!

      Also TF, I’ve noticed you’ve begun using more dramatic scenes in your videos, which is a great idea, it attracts new people. Visual design is a great way to carry ideas, thinking and the emotions you want to convey.

      Keep fighting the good fight!


      – One atheist among many

    • Fred McVittie Says:

      Couldn’t agree more. Youtube has little incentive to start a ‘hatchery’ and even if it did, the end result would simply be a more formal version of the Malthusian popularity contest it already is. Ideally there should be some sort of structure which allows smaller communities to form and to share ideas and information. Some members of these communities would achieve wider popularity but that would not be the only aim. Obviously YT is not going to provide the mechanisms for this to happen so it would have to be a bottom-up initiative. Bigger channels supporting smaller ones would be a very good place to start, possibly with the addition of some kind of community ‘branding’ – maybe members of a self-organising community could all carry a badge on their channel page, or a shared avatar. Thunderf00t, you are in an ideal place to kick-start such a project. Are you going to do something or are you just going to complain about Youtube?

  7. elliot paige Says:

    The partnership program and the google buyout killed off YouTube.
    There is no way back now, only the rise of a new video sharing site that captures the imagination of the average person will break You Tubes dominance and put the control back in the hands of the average aspiring video maker. A real game change like the emergance of Facebook over My Space.

  8. ShouldersofGiants Says:

    Could I say, if you wanted to help smaller players, you could find ones with talent and provide links to their videos, the same could with the other major players, I suspect that if exposure is the only problem, then that method would provide the needed boost.

  9. Nervous Neuron Says:

    I agree with Cephas Borg’s wife. Youtube is the hatchery for the big world of media out there. Or perhaps that’s how it started out. And the same analogy applies to other forms of media and entertainment, such as music, for example.

    I believe youtube will mature (if it hasn’t already) when it has reached its peak audience. Earlier in its life, not as many people have visited youtube. The biggest video would have like a million views, and that was massive. And when the most subscribed had 100,000 subs. Now what’s it up to?

  10. loreleila Says:

    In addition to the comment i made on your video I’d like to add that I wonder if you’ve noticed that YT has its own agenda, none of which has the slightest interest in anything but making money, turning YT into another form of TV where the ‘public’ (that’s us, even you) is the consumer not the director or the contributor or the designer in any significant way. They’ve changed things so the majority of channels don’t show up in anyones subs box, they direct people only to places which will be financially beneficial to them. And the number of times I’ve watched those who are offered partneship sell their souls to produce material which will conform to this lowest common denominator is saddening. Or imagine their endorsement by YT somehow makes them better than everyone else. A pathetic parody of a heirarchy. The trap of so called celebrity. The inspired and inspiring cannot thrive in such an atmosphere, any more than they would offering it in the middle of a shopping mall. YT as it was is dying. Many of us who’ve been here from the early days, some quite sizeable channels (though I’m sure small fry to you) have been wracking our brains to come up with a truly viable alternative which will not descend into the same consumerist trap.

  11. Cephas Borg Says:

    Wow, really thoughtful comments…

    But let’s not forget, YT (I’m wearing out my vowels) started out as a Warhol-esque “celebrity” tool. (His comment, not his style).

    The fact that so many people were able to adapt the paradigm to make edutainment videos was not something I think the YT founders thought would happen. In fact, I don’t think they thought much apart from making it big. How that happened was up to us, not them.

    What a cool business model – create a blank canvas and let others do the creativity thang, then sell that to the highest bidder. Sad? Hell yeah, but that’s business these days.

    So either the monoliths move, or they help make way for the up-and-coming. But how would that work?

    Another YT without the advertising? Links to thoughtful, idea-provoking channels, staying with the current YT infrastructure? Or starting all over again? How about “watch this other video first, then come back and watch mine”? That would require a huge amount of trust, and could be seen as advertorial.

    I do like the way Phil’s new blog can incorporate YT content, both as the blog entry and in comments. Maybe that’s the least-worst alternative – use YT as a multimedia resource, nothing more?

  12. Prelude610 Says:

    I’m not sure I’m seeing the problem. I mean, I do see more and more advertising and I don’t care for it. And if an advertiser is reading, it makes you look silly, especially since so many of the ads I see are way off the mark.

    But as far as the big guys coming to YT goes, and established channels like TF’s, ProfMTH’s, and others shrinking in terms of relative numbers, I wouldn’t pay any mind to that unless this caused your actual numbers to shrink.

    I came to YT to find stuff to view because I don’t care for 99.99% of what is on cable or broadcast TV, the same folks that are moving to, or in on, YT. (I don’t even have a working TV anymore.) The quality of the content and the intrusiveness of the advertising drove me off and eventually to I found good stuff on YT. While I can’t escape the advertising on YT, I can at least select the content.

    I’ve messaged ProfMTH several times to thank him for his work, and told him that his channel and others here are much better than TV, including NPR and PBS. The smaller, more creative channels here that offer quality content will get the attention of people looking for such. The bigger channels, the one’s people aren’t watching on TV anymore, will continue to draw a TV-oriented audience. Some of them will discover that smaller and more creative channels, eventually. I guess YT is now a mall and the big guys are the anchor stores.

    I don’t understand the “cost of entry” comment either. You make a video, then upload it for free. It costs time and effort, but hasn’t that always been true? What has changed here?

    But if you mean “the cost of achieving a certain ranking or status on YT”, my question is, is that the goal?

    I understand that with all the effort put into videos like the ones TF has done one would like to see a little more come of it that lots of viewer comments and likes, and even subscriptions. I’ve began to look at the prolific folks here as being like video garage bands that start out just loving to play and work at improve their performances and developing a unique sound, but at some point if they don’t break through into the big times they end up quitting. But at least in the atheist community on YT, and certainly other issue-driven channels, there is more going on and one should reflect more on the impact they are having and not on standard viewer metrics. Think of it this way. Someone publishes 300 papers during their academic career, and they’ve made substantial contributions to their field, ones that really matter, even if their work never got mentioned on the Times or on an episode of Nova.

    What I think may happen is that various YT communities will coalesce and end up working together more. That is already happening in the atheist community, or at least in part of it. Could be at some point this coalescence turns leads to a degree of consolidation, with some youtubers operating channels jointly. Imagine if TF and AronRa and others did a joint project and produced a Nova-quality (or easily better) video. Imagine!

    If these communities and/or collaborations start to get noticed then maybe youtube will respond by making it easier to find these communities, rather than the individual channels. You know, like if cable had an Atheist channel to go with the golf channel.

    My experience here started with TF, but by reading his likes and other recommendations, I started finding others, and I really would like to thank Thunderf00t for that, and I still visit TF’s channel just to see what he recommends. Anyway, before that I wasn’t interested in what was going on on YT. I sort of had the idea that YT was just a bunch of cat videos and in-car videos from races, which is what I do, but on Vimeo. Still, my appreciation of YT was pretty much how the folks on NPR and other big media seem to see it. Little do they know…

  13. BlitzNeko Says:

    You remember when the internet was more interesting? …..yeah good times….

  14. Stephen Says:

    Where is your data to support what you are saying? I personally subscribe to a few channels that only became huge less than 12 months ago.

  15. Stig Says:

    Sorry to go off-topic.

    The “Stop Online Piracy Act” will save jobs? Or will it, in fact, just be a tool to censor the net? I just realised you haven’t said a word on this thing. Any thoughts?

  16. Cephas Borg Says:

    To go slightly OT for a bit…

    I find it fascinating that so many people think advertisers “read” or “watch” YT videos in order to “target” their advertising.

    I also find it hilarious that so many atheist channels get littered with “Date Christian Girls” ads! It’s utterly obvious that they look for any mention of the word “christ” or “religion”, without any further discrimination.

    In fact, advertisers seem to use crude (and inelegant, although that’s just my aesthetic talking) pattern-matching tools in order to target their ads.

    Kinda like the old bayesian-based spam filters, where partial word matches could empty your (otherwise somewhat eclectic) inbox, just because they couldn’t match a phrase instead of a word. That was nearly a decade ago, I thought the advertising gurus would have more creative tools at their disposal. Obviously not!

    So just be aware that most advertisers just use simple word matches to target their ads, and this should continue to provide ironic and bizarre advert appearances. Win-Lose!

  17. Kimble Says:

    Seems like this is the natural life cycle of good things on the internet. Consider Ebay, when it started you could search for something and find a dozen people selling their second hand item. Now when you search you get 2000 hits with all of them being online retailers who have set up ghetto stores.

    Keep an eye on Craigs List.

    Through many rapid evolutionary cycles, good things on the internet reach stability. Its no ones fault that early adopters then find that that stability isnt what they signed up for.

  18. pappafrito Says:

    With all due respect,
    As an agnostic, I contribute the following:
    thunderf00t(small t), you are not only an insignificant, unaccredited unqualified self-proclaimed scientist, but you are also an arrogant piece of shit whom I loathe for the reasons I will provide henceforth. Prior to this, I also would like to include that drpjones, in light of the abovementioned qualifications, don’t believe he can measure up to even that height of significance.
    So allow me to join those dots for you both, since I don’t believe either one of you have the mental capacity to process the obvious. Dprojones, you’re even lower than thunderf00t which is quite an achievement if the objective was to become anti-intelligence. Perhaps there is a purpose.
    You are an absolute pestering, condescending non-scientific fucking moron. You claim to be a scientist (which you’re not), yet you deny one of the very founding virtues of science continually.
    I painfully read and listened to your pitiful postings and videos and have established that:
    a- You’re not a scientist
    b- You’re definitely not an economist
    c- You are not logical
    d- Agnostics and Atheists are embarrassed by your lame attempts to discuss theism, philosophy or even basic science
    e- You were owned by Ray Comfort
    f- You have no respect for yourself or your peers
    g- You’re hatful and seek to hurt those whom differ in opinion
    h- You don’t even understand your own political environment

    In short, you’re a fucking hateful moron and you shall apologize for this.


  19. pappafrito Says:

    BTW: Have you read and analyzed you own arguments before posting this hideously article? Seriously? Please tell me it was a drunken moment and you just posted it without any sober thinking whatsoever in the like of texting an old girlfriend when you’re shitfaced. Please. Otherwise the logics equates to watching Pirates of the Caribbean on LSD. Considering you’re previous contributions to the internet, that’s probably not out of the realm of possibilities.
    So observation 1), the more people that joined Youtube, you have experienced a lesser degree of creativity and moreover, more of the same, but at the same time less of it.
    Observation 2) in this processes of expansion of non-newness, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to establish a presence on youtube because the ‘fatcats” are coming in and obviously enticing more people to _not_ go to your pathetic website, but rather to go to “their” unoriginal un-vibrant content.

    Great critical thinking in this….

  20. pappafrito Says:

    Obviously Google execs should have called you before buying Youtube. They are obviously morons since they didn’t consider your insightful advice.


  21. pappafrito Says:

    I’m not going to ask you to apologize for your absolute utter idiocy since I know you are too full of your fucking self, but if I see you post another fucking video on youtube ridiculing someone’s point of view, belief (such as you belief) or religious position, I’ll make you my banana.




  22. pappafrito Says:

    (er: you/Your)

    • Jonas Says:


      I either smell a troll or someone who thinks they are god.

      It was simply funny to read through your posts because they are so stupid:-)

      PS: first you said he would apologize and then you sais the oposite in another post.

      I smell troll.

    • Prelude610 Says:

      Apparently you don’t like what TF has been saying or doing, but instead of criticizing that, you attack the person. Sometimes that simply means one is unable to rebut the arguments for lack of evidence etc, or unable because you can’t get past your emotions. Nevertheless, you are making claims here that I think you are obligated to back up. So do it. Back it up or go away. Your points, with my critique in ():

      a- You’re not a scientist (He is, See Concordance’s video)
      b- You’re definitely not an economist (So what?)
      c- You are not logical (He is.)
      d- Agnostics and Atheists are embarrassed by your lame attempts to discuss theism, philosophy or even basic science. (Not really. Some may be, but from what I have seen it is more due to tone, not substance. Still, you need to back this up.)
      e- You were owned by Ray Comfort (Source?)
      f- You have no respect for yourself or your peers (Evidence please.)
      g- You’re hatful and seek to hurt those whom differ in opinion (Nope. He is uncompromising in criticizing dangerous religion and impostor science such as Nephi.)
      h- You don’t even understand your own political environment. (Is that relevant? Cite examples.)

      And do you find it either ironic or hypocritical that you come here to criticize TF’s views and then make some sort of banana-themed threat to him for criticizing people’s views?

    • Cephas Borg Says:

      With all due respect,

      As a blood donor, I refute your ad-hominem attacks.

      Whatever else “PaPPaFRiTo” may be (left-handed, brown-eyed, testicularly deprived, troll, highly religiously motivated), you appear to be
      a) a coward;
      b) a liar;
      c) a potty mouth; and
      d) slightly mentally retarded.

      Now, any one of those failings could be corrected by ignoring, rebuking, intelligent conversation, appropriate drug treatment, or some basic edumacation. But all of them put together make you smell like a different animal altogether.

      Unfortunately, your “arguments” sound peculiarly like a certain muslim/christian (mustian? :)) wanker with pretty serious mental problems. So either you’re a troll who’s spent far too much time absorbing the characteristics of the person you’re trying to pretend to not be, or you’re that person trying to pretend to be something you’re not (i.e. a reasoned, intelligent, rational interlocutor). Or you’re religious, despite your protestations to the contrary.

      Either way, the pretense is obvious, and you’re doing the wrong thing by letting the voices tell you what to say.

      The real pity is, you won’t convince anyone here, least of all Dr Phil, because you can’t make an argument out of your own mind against all the documented facts.

      You need to raise specific, clear issues pertaining to the belief or knowledge of the person you disagree with, not attack their person with lousy grammar, poor spelling, and half-baked brainfarts. I promise you, that way you’ll get a reasoned response. Doing this “your way” just makes us atheists laugh.

      I’d suggest that you start taking your medications again. Or if you are still taking them, stop, they’re not working.

      I’m just sayin’.

  23. pappafrito Says:

    My contribution thus far:

    Your point is insignificant, and void of intellectual relevance to warrant a response.

    – Apparently you don’t like what TF has been saying or doing, (No I don’t)
    – but instead of criticizing that, you attack the person. (Not only does TF attack, he ridicules, belittle, hurt and seek to destroy whom he disagrees with, this is not debate)
    – Sometimes that simply means one is unable to rebut the arguments for lack of evidence etc., or unable because you can’t get past your emotions. (I’m not emotional, unlike TF. I and many others whom TF sought to debate, he is completely prepared to debate him on merit; my point with Ray Comfort. In saying this, this is not what TF has been practicing, rather he hurts, tries to destroy, ridicule or otherwise demerit those whom he disagrees. His Why People Laugh at Creationists is a perfect example and an absolute disgrace to those whom are intellectuals. )

    In following, I will address your following disconnected argument and accusations as follows:

  24. pappafrito Says:

    Prelude610, I appreciate the response. Since you seem to be the only one to have the intellectual capacity to even come close to understanding what I’m referring to, (Not patronizing I promise)

    Therefore I will provide the following:

    a- TF is not accredited, and has no peer review. (FACT)
    b- (Admitted FACT)
    c- Challenged at best, see his nozzle size experiment “experiment”. It laughable at best, he doesn’t understand basic physics and his experiment proves it.
    d- I never said he was retarded or otherwise.

  25. pappafrito Says:

    -f and
    -g , come on!, really

  26. pappafrito Says:

    -h is a discussion, but I’m more than willing to make my case. TF has no clue what the (US) liberal party is all about, HENCE is problem with Darwahh who the fuck they are. He’s fucking clueless! He’s NOT supposed to be against Darwrah Films!! He didn’t get it! Why do you thin he’s go so much hate mail over it and so confused!!??

    You know why he’s confused? Because “HE’S A FUCKING MORON”. Politically, Intellectually, Scientifically, Mathematically, and obviously, as a Physician.

  27. pappafrito Says:

    Physicist I meant. He may make a great Physician.

  28. pappafrito Says:

    And BTW Cephas: Keep donning blood….. Everyone has a use.

    • Jonas Says:

      Sorry, but I just can’t figure out how to reply to this. It’s just so stupid.

      You say he is not a scientist, yet if you watch c0nc0rdance’s video, it’s clearly shown. And he has been on trips around the world on scientific missions.

      I just don’t see how you can say he ain’t a scientist, thus my conclusion is still that you’re a troll. Sorry.

      And the things you say, you don’t really back them up, like you say “a- TF is not accredited, and has no peer review. (FACT)”, the word “FACT” does not mean you’ve proven anything at all… Show us real factual sources. If you can’t do that then you’re not really debating, your just throwing out words, and yes then you’ll get laughed at.

      PS: I am God (FACT… or is it?)

      This is my last reply to you 🙂

  29. pappafrito Says:

    You’re all a bunch of arrogant, self-absorbed bullies. You tunderf00t, entitled with the supposed authority to represent science, yet you fail it so, in your trustful quest to destroy, discredit and ridicule anything which seems to evade your simpleton intellect.
    You not only paternally seem to be promoting the negation of critical thinking, but as well to ridicule, belittle, and seek to discredit via any means those whom challenge you. Whether from an intellectual theological or philosophical point of view.

    • Prelude610 Says:

      Could you tell us a little something about yourself, to provide a little background, then then tell us exactly what TF has said or is doing that has you so upset? Specific example’s please.

      I don’t think there is such a thing as an accredited scientist. Most have PhD’s, but that is not required. Publications help, but some scientists rarely publish after graduation. It’s just not part of their job or is not allowed per company policy.

      TF has shown he knows his stuff, and knows science. While no one will ever have the authority to represent science, some do it well and TF is one of those people.

      TF’s videos that criticize Islam or Nephi or others always present evidence and thorough explanations of the correct science. Except, the ones where he simply reads the Bible to us and comments, pointing out how silly they are to us now, even if they made sense to namadic desert tribes from 1000 BCE. Why do people still believe that stuff? My favorite in this genre is the “God is a Volcano” video. Classic!

      If TF has crushed a cherished belief of yours it seems you only recourse, other than throwing hissy fit, is to rebut his arguments. Please make that effort and we will consider what you say. (As if I speak for anyone here but myself.)

      I haven’t seen anything in TF’s videos, or even most of the athiest community’s videos, that negate critical thinking. In fact, they encourage, even demand, it.

      In closing, you have to admit that there are a lot of people out there spouting some utter nonsense, some of it dangerous, and some of it centuries old. We all, including you, should be free, nay, obligated, to speak up and criticize that which is foul or just plain wrong. We should be nice about it when we can, and harsh when necessary. It may hurt when it hits you, but that just means the ball is in your court and you get to decide if you want to answer, or retire.

      Try to imagine the opposite, where everything that ever pops into someone’s head and comes out of their mouth is always accepted and taken to be true.

    • Cephas Borg Says:

      And you’re… what? A reasonable, educated, compassionate thinker?

      Not judging by the mental garbage you’ve thrown around here and in your YT “channel”. (I’d call it a sewer, based on the almost identical poisonous bleatings you put up there, but I used to live and work on a sewerage farm, and the channels there were far healthier than your “tourette’s rebuttals”!)

      It’s impossible to argue with incoherent trolls, because you never listen to a word said to you, by patient people or impatient ones. Rather, you do the human equivalent of monkeys throwing faeces – re-typing irrational and utterly irrelevant insults from other people’s websites and blogs! How can you honestly expect to be taken seriously if you can’t raise an intellectually valid argument on your own? Come on dude, smell the coffee. You’re a mental joke, and the joke is you!

      I’m interested (from a purely psychological viewpoint) in how you evaluate people who subscribe to this blog and your own “channel”, based solely on your own psychopathic, irrational, self-indulgent rants of how you think the world works.

      Here’s a clue – if anyone reading your verbal diarrhoea reverses everything you say, it actually makes some sense (as defined by rational usage of that word, i.e. it then agrees with valid, reputable, verifiable truths). Anyone, even religious types like Mullah Kevin, or any of the Golden Crocoduck nominees, would agree that inverting your take on the world almost turns you into a rational, thinking human being. Almost.

      Taking your verbal excreta at face value? What a senseless waste of breath!

      The universe called, it wants its energy back.

  30. MackQuigley Returns « MackQuigley Says:

    […] […]

  31. ipad 2 Says:

    ipad 2…

    […]Stagnation on youtube « Thunderf00t[…]…

  32. Nifty, NSEIndia, Nifty Future, Nifty Future Live, Nifty Future Live Chart, Nifty Future Live Chart with Live Buy Sell Signals Says:

    Nifty, NSEIndia, Nifty Future, Nifty Future Live, Nifty Future Live Chart, Nifty Future Live Chart with Live Buy Sell Signals…

    […]Stagnation on youtube « Thunderf00t[…]…

  33. buy traffic hits Says:

    buy traffic hits…

    […]Stagnation on youtube « Thunderf00t[…]…

  34. Traffic Assault review Says:

    Traffic assault Review…

    Hey, Traffic assault here. This is a post that we think is useful….

  35. Free Download Software, Games, Movie, eBook, Music, TV-Shows, GFX Says:

    Free Download Software, Games, Movie, eBook, Music, TV-Shows, GFX…

    […]Stagnation on youtube « Thunderf00t[…]…

  36. tjen penge, tjen penge hjemmefra, betalte undersoegelser, hurtige penge, tjen penge online, arbejd hjemmefra, affiliate marketing, blog Says:

    tjen penge, tjen penge hjemmefra, betalte undersoegelser, hurtige penge, tjen penge online, arbejd hjemmefra, affiliate marketing, blog…

    […]Stagnation on youtube « Thunderf00t[…]…

  37. Pat McLaughlin Says:

    YouTube was kind of like Television in its beginning, a new technology for exchanging more information faster to more people. At the television’s start its content was limited and lacking until the really creative ones of our species found out what they could do with this new technology. Television also had to wait for the hardware itself to become available to the average household (it was a shorter lag for the computer technologies). Some of the early television proponents envisioned the technology could be used as an educational tool for society.

    Indeed in many ways it is a tool to educate the mass. There are the Public Broadcasting Systems used for general education (in my opinion a good thing) and then there is the large privately owned broadcasting sector that “educates” its audience in ways that I find not very productive or enlightening. Unfortunately, I think, our human nature is to gravitate towards the low hanging fruit that commercialized television provides. The same can be said of YouTube and many of the other forums available from internet technology.

    Fortunately there is always the fickleness of human nature to change the equation and who knows what future technology will come along to un-stagnate this. Personally I get a lot more enjoyment from learning new things and appreciate the knowledgeable people that share their experiences and educations. I will have to admit that I didn’t feel this way when I was younger and mostly went for the low hanging fruit (sweet but not very filling). As you say YouTube is just doing what any business does to capitalize on its resources / users and is in my opinion a short sighted way to go.

    The one redeeming factor of this new (relatively) technology is it’s two-way communication path. Something that would be pretty hard to stop or censor and is what draws me away from commercialized television.

    In the free market of ideas, entertainment and creativity the good ones will survive and flourish, the wannabe’s and hacks will be recognized for what they are and the expensive and flashy ones will always capture the attention of the audience. It will pretty much remain this way until those at the helm of YouTube and all the other Googles and FaceBooks place a higher value on learning and knowledge before dollars and drivel.

  38. politie filmpje dit moet je echt zien Says:

    absolutely much like your web-site and you require phone transliteration upon a lot of your content regularly. A lot of possibilities rife with transliteration issues and I believe it is extremely frustrating to be honest however I will absolutely are available just as before just as before.

  39. tutorial increase youtube views Says:

    First of all I would like to say excellent blog! I had a quick question in which
    I’d like to ask if you don’t mind. I was interested to find out
    how you center yourself and clear your head before writing.
    I have had difficulty clearing my mind in getting my thoughts
    out there. I truly do enjoy writing but it just seems like the first
    10 to 15 minutes are lost just trying to figure out how to begin.
    Any recommendations or hints? Kudos!

  40. Red Vodka Says:

    I think that it’s ultimately about controversy and conflict. People are attracted more to a scientific video debunking bad science, than just a scientific video on its own.

    I think your channel grew through confrontation (the “Why do…” series). And I love how you branch out and speak out as a skeptic, not just in terms of science, but in terms of social topics as well (e.g. feminism).

    I appreciate how you want to showcase some of your personal hobbies and whatnot, but understand that those aren’t guaranteed to get you views.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: