Over the last few years Google has been doing more and more things with their search algorithm to guarantee the results they want people to see show up first on the list they provide. It makes sense on the surface, they are a for profit company and want to optimize profits so they filter results to support those that support them. That is perfectly natural behavior if you ask me, people respond to incentives and there is no changing that aspect of human nature I would say. 

![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmRzJKdVvsHpoA3PgyV1iYRKjdiEdxiGo5YtsVto2LwDwL/image.png)

I do not consider this a bad thing in anyway, even if it does effect the work I do, I have a choice in what I write about and there is nothing stopping me from shilling for entertainment industry after all. The idea that people should be enticed into doing things with a positive reward is much better than any tactic like forcing them to do it by threat or using guilt to control their actions, wouldn't you agree?

I certainly hope so but that brings me to the point of this article, some don't appear to grasp this concept. The old turn of phrase that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar seems to have gone over the heads of the people at Google and the MSM, old money cheerleaders that support censorship. 

I was doing research on the topic because I broadcast a podcast for @Informationwar to YouTube a couple times a week and knowing what problems are coming for [our channel](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiC39t6SeMLucPXElxVO2hA?view_as=subscriber) is my business. This isn't my first censorship rodeo and I am not here to complain about my work being buried, like I said before I could be telling you how great the newest movie produced by *(insert mega conglomerate name)* studios is and how you must go see it today if clicks  and views was  all I was after. I just noticed a new and foreboding narrative forming up around this latest round of changes and I had to ask for more opinions on the subject, I guess that's my nature.  

There are plenty of examples of journalists celebrating the new batch of rules but in a way that looks like madness to me. Take this [article from Forbes as an example](https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeordogh/2019/01/28/youtube-stops-recommending-conspiracy-videos-finally/#5ed06fe477cf) please. In it author Fruzsina Eordogh says some odd, off the wall things that need to be shown as plain crazy I attest. 

![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmUaDhnbMwKR2gPVSB3CDjAep3hEu9WYmSpyjdbKCwchE7/image.png)

She does her best to paint everyone outside the MSM as insane by describing those who believed as lunatics and goes to the guilt by association pit of the debate by lumping everyone in with neo-nazis. This is a [Forbes article  mind you](https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeordogh/2019/01/28/youtube-stops-recommending-conspiracy-videos-finally/#5ed06fe477cf) that is disparaging people and alienating readers, not sure what you think but this is why I brought the metaphor of honey and vinegar. Just as a side note, when did their financial magazine start sourcing Buzzfeed for their information. Citing Buzzfeed and attacking the people reading isn't the really crazy part of this story though unfortunately.

What is really nutty is  where this journalist goes with her conspiracy theory and how she ties it into the response and reasoning put forth  by the actual people making the changes at YouTube. Get a load of this quote from YouTube on why they made the change and her reaction:

![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmWaBgkRExuqNTzAfSK1x45dJF5TkYPjtSDG5GetEJDBb7/image.png)

So, the implication is that this move by Google Corp. is a ruse to stop a plot by authoritarian socialists who are pushing cookie recipes? What in the world is she talking about? I hope this a joke because it's too weird to be taken seriously. It seems  to me that the algorithm change was about reducing the redundancy in their customers feed and becoming more advertiser friendly at the same time sounds perfectly logical to me.

Perhaps they did bow to the bullies that push the status quo as well but if they did it in the pursuit of appeasing the people who keep their lights on then so be it. I get the message that YouTube wants to be a consumer driven marketplace and are out to make as much money as they can, you tell me if that seems more logical than the MSM narrative about skin-head snickerdoodle conspiracies.

The only thing that gives me the foreboding feeling I mentioned is the implications of what this means our culture if we keep going down this path. An unfortunate reality in here is that  money lends legitimacy and this is not the only change to our feeds being done. They are openly bragging about their site being [brand safe](https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/330852/youtube-says-its-platform-is-now-brand-safe.html) so that they can operate much like the other media providers and cut lucrative deals with companies like Forbes and CNN who have been consolidating wealth for generations. How are most people going to judge the news when the pocket book of your company determines your legitimacy as journalist? 

I assert that money doesn't make truth and that we need to separate the journalists who do not have the scruples to act on that distinction from those who do. 

I certainly hope we all see through this and only the readers who already see socialist conspiracies everywhere.  It is rough that such wacky writers have such a big platform have the power to make people like me struggle, no doubt about it. That isn't going to stop me from trying to help though. It does give me a bad feeling to think that more and more people will be exposed to this insanity being pushed by outlets like Forbes because they have bought a position of authority. 

My argument is that the MSM narrative relies on their ability to push people around. They use a combination of guilt, threats and old money to keep their hold on the power inherent in controller our discussions. Their ongoing assault on Alex Jones, someone who has already been defunded and kicked off almost every platform imaginable, shows a cowardice and overall disrespect for their readers. The man can't defend himself because of their bullying efforts and I think the constant slander against him is scapegoating. The idea that they keep taking victory laps when it comes to winning the censorship battle seems appropriate to mention. They are celebrating the fact that they have no respect for those who listen to independent media and want to ask questions. 

 
Take this example from my article about where I spoke on the topic of [Qanon](https://steemit.com/news/@gregorypatrick/qanon-exposed-a-long-term-hoax-effort-has-come-to-an-end) and what [Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeordogh/2019/01/28/youtube-stops-recommending-conspiracy-videos-finally/#3297489d77cf) is saying as a comparison on how we handled this story. I personally believe that the way the MSM took on the subject as really unhealthy but I would like to hear your opinion on that subject.

 I can only do my small part to keep the conversation reasonable but I do implore you to share my work with anyone open minded enough to give it a chance.  If people don't get more than the MSM narrative to base their world view on this insanity will likely spread, so please do your part  to help. Thank you for reading, have a great day!


![46aP2QbqUqBqwyMYx5rqyRHKeBNs13ixdhnSGL3CKnwTDxR2npZRRaEMZUCx2fLSmdrCsSWMoNdafjMFPwAxGSiPmV97.gif](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmcHzMoojoJVdsNHzqzVPNBBFcYEMLSoeg1pwxih5nYGCF/46aP2QbqUqBqwyMYx5rqyRHKeBNs13ixdhnSGL3CKnwTDxR2npZRRaEMZUCx2fLSmdrCsSWMoNdafjMFPwAxGSiPmV97.gif)


![IW banner.png](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmQNdBoPMiSKhFzbuH1wzgop2yKXQvd8DMFanK5K3Hev6k/IW%20banner.png)