i just want to get the point across, so the word gets out.

i need to reiterate that i post a lot at rt, al jazeera and other global intersections. that's how i'm getting traffic from across the world.

unfortunately, the google algorithms are interpreting that as bought views, and while, again, i'll state that buying views wouldn't get me anything besides a lot of confused sheep, it's obvious that i'm not buying 4 views from south korea or whatever else.

what's setting the trigger off is the ratio. less than half of my views over the year are from the united states (although us + uk + can make up a bit more than half). according to google's filters, that's impossible without buying views.

and i claim that's blatantly racist.

what's going to happen over time is that google is going to slowly delete most of these views - most zealously the ones from southeast asia, russia, the middle east and africa.

what has to happen is that youtube needs to change how it tries to catch bought views, because what it's doing right now is just erasing 80% of the planet from it's watch stats.

more to the point, i guess, is that i'm *not* advertising to an american-centric audience, but largely to one outside the united states. my views would not be popular in that country.

....and, i mean, i'm not even from the united states. it's sort of ridiculous to expect me to get mostly american traffic when i neither live there nor am interested in their culture, but rather rant a whole lot about how evil they are.

google is notoriously difficult to contact, but they do react to negative information when they hear it, so talk amongst yourselves. it'll get back to them.

the reality is that a canadian news analyst commenting heavily over global news sources should expect to generate a global audience, and google has their head in their ass about it if their algorithm interprets that as fraudulent due to the views being less than 50% american.

i need to stop thinking about it, though. it really doesn't matter. it's just pissing me off on the principle of it.

deathokoalas
o'reilly is legitimately standing at the end of a long line of human thought, but it doesn't necessarily have to do with religion. the crux of what o'reilly is saying is that people won't behave properly unless they have a fear of consequence. because o'reilly also wants small government, he pushes it off to a higher power to enforce the threat of consequence. but, there's a lot of problems with the whole approach.

to begin with, just because bill wants the bad guys to believe they're going to have to deal with god doesn't mean they're going to. because religion is so counter-intuitive, in order for it to really work as a disincentive it needs to be enforced from the top - by government, maybe, as was done by various christian churches in the past and is still enforced in islamic theocracies, or maybe by media, as is done more viably in the united states. so, it's just a hobbesian argument, in the end - and nothing to do with religion, itself.

but, what's worse is that a really moral person doesn't require the consequence. if you're only behaving because of the threat of consequence, you're not truly moral. his ends really don't follow from his strategy.

dawkins seems to generally realize that he's often debating with social engineers, rather than legitimately religious people. whatever sort of self-constraints he imposes on himself tend to neutralize his arguments. i wish he'd engage his opponents on the level they truly exist on, rather than the level they pretend they exist on.