To be honest I think control of the YouTube algorithm by YouTube is sinister and dangerous, as are their content policies, which despite the claims of Chrisos Goodrow are not transparent (there is sufficiently wide scope for interpretation and judgement that YouTube can demote, ad-block, restrict or ban almost any video and is not obliged, indeed never does, give the specific reason beyond 'content guideline violation.') Transparency would require some kind of independence and oversight, not merely the "we're nice guys, trust us" assurance that Cristos provides. <br><br>Platforms like YouTube have become far too important in the modern sphere of public discourse to be run as fiefdoms. We are told to fear undue influence in the public domain by foreign actors gaming social media, and yet are apparently unconcerned that companies like Google have infinitely more control of the levers. <br><br>The open admission in this interview that YouTube sees itself as having an active role in shaping public discourse without acknowledging  the extraordinary unchecked power this conveys on the organisation is deeply worrying. And what does Christos have in answer to this? A bunch of meaningless platitudes!