The Government Wants To Control What You Watch | Trending Ep369

 The UK government is facing backlash over its proposed YouTube algorithmic changes, sparking fears of state-controlled content. Farage says he's 'done no wrongdoing' after benefits from ally not declared. And beavers in west London have solved a flooding problem saving the local council from expensive engineering works.

You can watch the full episode FOR FREE over on https://ickonic.com/Watch/3948

You can also subscribe to Ickonic to receive…

-  New Content Daily
-  Feature-Length Documentaries
-  Exclusive Original Series

Start your journey today for just £1.99 for the first month 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Tuesday's episode of Trending. UK government to control YouTube algorithms. Incoming Prime Minister Andy Burnham, that no one voted for, wants digital ID to access VPNs. The Nigel Farage Media Ferrore continues to roll on. And I've got a good news story involving a beaver. Welcome to the show, ladies and gentlemen. Before I start, I have got some breaking news. Credible reports out of the USA have suggested that Belgium is just two weeks away from developing a nuclear weapon. YouTube warns UK creators over government's new content control rules. Great. More censorship by Silicon Valley on behalf of the state as if there wasn't enough already. And the UK is among the worst, by the way. I mean, most of you watching this will know that anyway. But a lot of the people that still consume the mainstream media that they're about to have thrown down the neck even more will still hear British politicians spaffing on about authoritarian regimes and believing what they're saying. Oh God, Russia's bad, isn't it? North Korea's bad, isn't it? Iran's bad, isn't it? Your own country's not great, mate. The UK government is facing backlash over its proposed YouTube algorithmic changes, sparking fears of state-controlled content. Now, the YouTube algorithm is already throttling content creators depending on the content that they're creating. For instance, our shadow banning is off the charts. It's mad. And it's the same on X as well. So, you know, before people come at me with the, well, that's why we need to support Elon Musk. He's the free speech. No, he's not. He's exactly the same. Um, they're all the same. Now, what I find with ourselves, and I have spoken about this before, in terms of our shadow banning, and we're not the only ones. One of the reasons, of course, there's many, but one of the reasons that I see is that we don't pick sides politically. We don't have an allegiance to the right or to the left or to the Democrats or the Republicans or the Tories or the Conservatives or whatever, um, or the or Labour or whatever. Um, because they seem to be happy algorithmically to have the two sides. So you'll have major content creators on the right, and you'll have major content creators on the left. And as long as they keep arguing within that sort of political um arena, they're fine with it. And they'll be algorithmically boosted through the clouds and financially rewarded for that. That argument there is fine. Now, it reminds me of a quote by Noam Chomsky. Now, I'll probably completely butcher the quote, and I understand that Chomsky did turn into a bit of a div during COVID, but this particular quote was true where he was making the point that they will allow lots of debate, lots of debate to appear like you have freedom of speech and all that kind of stuff, but within a very tight boundary, within an overturn window, it just sits in there and that you can argue as much as you want in there. Whatever you do, don't go out here. And that's what we find. And for me, one of the major bits of out here is that actually doesn't matter whether you vote left or right, they're all the same, they all serve the same masters. And in fact, when it comes to identity politics as well, they will elevate certain sides of that. Whereas if you stand there and go, dude, we're all we're all equal, we're all human beings, we should all have the same rights as each other. Let's not be divided, let's come together. You would imagine, in a sane world, of course, which we don't live in, that actually voices that are talking about unity would be the ones that, well, let's elevate this because then we can all get on. It's the opposite of that. That's why they'll elevate both sides, because that creates a division, a polarity, and they want that. The controversy stems from Britain's plans for a public consultation entitled Watch This Space. I do love the names they come up with. A new strategic direction for UK media. Sounds quite Orwellian, doesn't it? That a new strategic direction for UK media. Well, because UK media's been doing that into the toilet for decades, revealing a shift in how audiences consume news. I love the terminology. You consume it, don't you? Like a Big Mac. Here's some crap. Get it down here. Public service broadcasters, including ITV, the BBC, Channel 4, and Channel 5. God, channel 5, is that still going? Raise the concerns of growing influence of algorithm-driven social media content over high quality journalism. I hope you're not saying high quality journalism when you've just reeled off ITV, BBC Channel 4, and Channel 5, which I didn't even know still existed. But yeah, no, they are. What's happened to the mainstream media over decades is they've just told one too many lies, to be honest, and people are done with it. You don't have to be someone that's conspiratorial or or or watching stuff like this or whatever to understand that actually the media just lies to you all the time. You could go into any pub or any cafe or any shop, if they're all still open, and say to someone, Do you trust the media? And they will go, Oh goodness no. And they don't need to be of our way of thinking and stuff like that. They can be very mainstream, very normy for want of a better term, but they don't, no, I don't, no, I don't believe a word they say. And that's what happens. It's the whole cry wolf thing, isn't it? The media's just lied constantly. And during COVID, they went into overdrive. Because what the media does, the mainstream media overwhelmingly, and there are little journalists in there that are trying to do a bit of good, and I know some of them, but they they are unfortunately are few and far between, is they've told the people for a very long time not to believe the evidence of their eyes and ears. Believe what it says on the page here, believe what I'm telling you, believe what Boris Johnson's telling you at the 5 pm briefing. Don't believe your own eyes and your own ears. Whereas overwhelmingly, the alternative media, yes, it's co-opted in lots of ways, but when the alternative media came out and started to expand, it did the opposite. It said, no, no, no, actually believe what you're hearing and seeing with your own ears and eyes. Actually, that is. And that resonates with people. Of course it does. Whereas the media said, no, no, no, don't worry about it. Everything's fine, whilst I mean the rooms ablaze. To tackle this issue, the government is exploring the ways to increase the dominance of these broadcasters. I mean, I mean, they threaten you with a thousand pound fine if you don't pay to consume the BBC. But yeah, okay, let's talk about um their lack of dominance, shall we? On social media platforms like TikTok and YouTube, as per the um administration, the primary objective of algorithmic changes is to ensure that authoritative news remains accessible to the public in transparent ways. That's just a word salad. Um, it's also nothing to do with any of that. It's about silencing alternative voices on the internet and replacing those voices with the voices of the state, which is what the establishment media are. And, you know, there's so much evidence for that. But this is why COVID was so important in terms of waking people up. That's why it's worth banging on about all the time. That and the fact that people should have some justice, which is not had yet, but is because it was there, like I say, we were told to ignore all the evidence of our eyes and ears. But the other thing is people watched at 5 p.m. the Prime Minister and the chief medical officer and chief scientific officer and all the next slide, please, nonsense. We watched them come out and just spout a load of nonsense, and we watched the media go, Yep. That's brilliant. Thanks. Have you got any more? Have you got any more crap? You got some more crap? Yeah, I'll take that down. Yeah, yeah. There was no questions asked. They were never probed on anything. There was no, sorry, can I sorry, sorry, excuse me, uh, eat and mess. Um that's nonsense. None of that happened, and people saw that and went, these don't these don't feel like journalists. Well, it's not because they're not journalists, they're they're just repeating the government line. And you know, people turned off the telly. People refuse to pay their TV license, that's why they're threatening people again all the time. But the but the idea of this is bizarre to me because it's the like you've made the choice, right? You've gone, I'm done with the mainstream media. Like I used to trust them, I used to trust the guy in the suit, the posh voice, but I don't anymore. So I'm gonna turn that off and I'm gonna consume um news from the internet and from social media and various other sites. And it's not just social media, there's there's you know, obviously lots of media sites out there that that aren't mainstream. Well, that's not good enough. You're not allowed to make that choice. So they've then gone, no, no, no, we need to be there and we need to be elevated above all the others there as well. Just the equivalent of you turning off the news and the news anchor turning up at your house and banging on the door. Excuse me. Have you seen what's going on in Yemen? Yeah, I have, but I don't believe your version of it, son. Um, but the changes have ignited backlash online as YouTube also issued alerts to content creators about the changed discoverability of their content. In other words, no one's gonna see your stuff. But it's also YouTube playing good cop because they've played bad cop for years. But they also don't want people to walk from the platform. So you've got this rebranding of YouTube in the same way that you had the rebranding of Mark Zuckerberg. You've got the rebranding, um, I guess, of Twitter X through the purchase by Elon Musk and now he's some free speech guy. They're not changing, they're still banning people and algorithmically throttling people. They're just trying to rebrand themselves so you basically don't walk and go off and go to an alternative platform. And the other thing as well, which I think is worth mentioning, is during um again the the COVID nonsense when YouTube was just banning everyone. Obviously, my dad got banned, iconic got banned, everyone got banned that was speaking out against the narrative on COVID. All proved correct now, by the way, obviously. And um, I spoke to a friend that is quite well connected in America into YouTube and into Google. And he was saying to me that he'd gone to these people, uh friends of his, going, What the hell's going on? And that they said that these bannings of Americans, a lot of them as well, people like Dr. Batar and Sherry Tempani and others, that they were coming out of the UK. They were coming out of YouTube's offices in the UK, they weren't coming from America. So this story in terms of um the UK, you know, getting its claws into YouTube, it doesn't shock me in the slightest. Um, and like I say, none of this is anything new. Like I saw a lot of people on social media yesterday talking about the fact, oh my god, have you seen the the UK government's controlling the YouTube algorithm? And I'm there going, well, obviously. It's been going on for a very long time. It's not new, it's not right, and it's worth talking about, that's why I'm talking about it. But the the fact is it's not it's not new. Um and I I've known for a while that if you speak about particular take trending, for instance. If I speak about certain topics, I know which ones are gonna do well and which ones aren't. So if I wanted to talk previously, I mean, not so much now, obviously, because he's he's fallen on his sword, but before, when when Starmer was becoming massively unpopular, it didn't take very long for him to do that. If I would do a trending on Starmer, something Starmer had done, views would be great. But I knew if I mentioned something that Israel was up to, it would bum. People wouldn't see it. So it wouldn't even be a case of it got views, but you got loads of abuse in the comments or or or whatever. It just wouldn't get seen by people. And I would have conversations, but I've not seen your trendings for a bit. You don't do them anymore. Still do them, mate. You just don't see them. So you're as a as a um call myself a content creator, I don't really like that term, but as a content creator, because that's what the story's referring to, you've got a choice then. You can be honest and you can speak about what you want to speak about, what you believe to be important, what is happening in the world, what's trending. You can do that. And you can have episodes do okay and episodes bum completely. No one sees your stuff. Or you can go, do you know what? I'm just not gonna talk about that. And that's what a lot of people do. That's what a lot of the more successful YouTube creators do, is they pick, well, I can't don't touch that. Don't touch that. And so overwhelmingly over the years, those topics, Israel has always been one of those topics. Human-cause climate change, slightly less so. People are talking about it a bit more now, but before that was a topic that was off limits in terms of views. Transgenderism and the, you know, the the explosion of the use of pubic blockers and stuff like that, that was off the charts in terms of you couldn't talk about it. That was off off limits in terms of the algorithm. Vaccines were hugely so. That was one just don't talk about that, mate. Because you you that you that would often lead to bannings and suspensions and whatever. So this stuff is not new. And it gives you a choice. Are you gonna be honest and sincere, and this is what I believe, and suffer the consequences algorithmically? Or are you gonna just pick and choose the the uh the socially approved subjects and have a successful YouTube account? Well, I'm obviously choosing the previous because that's why that's what I believe is right. Whereas others made that choice. So this is something that's gone on for a while, and it's to do with the fact that they don't want people accessing alternative views. They don't want people accessing alternative information. And it's not the fact that some of this information, some of the information isn't even right. Some of the information is just a theory about something that people should be allowed to access and should be allowed to see, because then they can make their own decisions. People should be trusted, but they don't trust people because they worry that you'll you'll make a decision and your perceptions will be something that the state don't align with. Because that's the thing, you see, they want you to act in a certain way. And for you to act in a certain way, you need to think in a certain way. That's just how it goes. And so your thoughts, your perceptions, therefore your actions come from the information that you have access to. So if I have access to 10 sources of information, I've got 10 ways, 10 pieces to assimilate into my brain to that that makes sense, that doesn't, that actually now that totally that alone, of course, those two, yes, like you can connect stuff and then you you have a perception and a view, and that's how you act in terms of what you'll accept, what you won't accept, what you'll demand, what you'll refuse, and all that kind of stuff. Whereas if suddenly I've got two sources of information, the other eight have been algorithmically banned, I don't even see them anymore. Suddenly I've got two, and those two are state approved. Well then chances are you're going to perceive the world in a certain way and therefore act in a certain way that the state approves of. That's what they want. That's what um, and it's not the only thing, but it's one of the parts of what this social media ban of under-16s is about. Yes, it's about digital ID because you will need ID to access the internet and that will go uh and social media and that will go across the board for everyone. I'll have to prove I'm over 16. Apparently, the grey hair is not going to cut it. Um and of course that's an element of it. But another element of it is it's a way of denying people under 16 from accessing information that they they could have previously accessed. And as I've mentioned before, COVID was a perfect example of that. Because if I'm a 16-year-old kid or a 15-year-old kid, my school teachers are telling me to go and get the jab. The national curriculum, the government-controlled national curriculum, tells me that two and two equals five every single day. That's the only access I have. The TV news is telling me to get the jab and it's telling me that two and two equals five. It's telling me 100% safe and effective. Everything is telling me that, apart from social media. So there were so many young people during that period that were going onto social media and were seeing a difference. Hang on a minute. And because people know when they're being lied to and they know when they're being told the truth, not always, but overwhelmingly, you get vibe, don't you? You feel it. People were seeing stuff online that was resonating more with them than what the teachers were telling them, what their parents potentially were telling them, what the media was telling them, whatever. Well, they don't want people to have access to that. And a break-in story over the last day or so about Andy Burnham, who's the new prime minister coming in that no one's voted for, of course, because we live in a democracy, saying that you're going to require digital ID to access VPNs, that there's going to be control over VPNs. And that's that's a simple way of stopping kids. They'll fail because kids are resourceful. But it's a way of stopping kids using VPNs to get around that ban of social media and getting them on social media. So you can set a VPN to a country where the social media ban isn't in place. In the end, you'll be setting yourself on VPNs to North Korea or something. I'm just going to put China in. You know, they're more free than we are these days. But it just goes to show, in terms of Burnham coming in as this new guy and just continuing the push for um censorship and authoritarianism, just goes to show it's a big club and they're all in it. So you move Starmer out and you move Burnham in, because that's what's happened. It's a movement. It's not a natural, organic thing. It's just moving deck chairs around on the Titanic.

SPEAKER_01 18:40

Don't mention the reptiles dead. Even less is said about the great pocket, which some believe to be the true ruling power in the Vatican. Humans in the same dress. All of them have little sickness. I've never seen it before. This is the ultimate suicide. The symbols around us every day are just fundamental.