I think the answer must be related to an effort to reduce the amount of unauthorized copyrighted material or fraud on the platform. Currently the majority of such material/fraud on youtube is uploaded by small channels who can create another channel as necessary. Throttling small accounts is one possible way to combat this.
So, ask yourself, why would YouTube need to throttle in the first place? Who is giving all these protest-streamers their first 300 viewers, making them rise in the live-streaming rankings and exposing millions to anti-mandate protests?
I think YouTube is under attack. I think they learned from live-streams during George Floyd protests, which, incidentally, I also was exposed to, even though not caring too much about that. I think throttling is an attempt to avoid the artificial boosting of divisive and polarizing content.
I really do not want to turn this into a conspiracy theory, though Mark Zuckerberg did offer for Facebook to make some changes, with the rest blacked out under "secret weapon" technology. After experiments done on Facebook on emotional contagion, surely, they must have ways to, instead of rile up an entire populace, calm them down. We are at an age where a single out-of-context video of alleged police brutality can shut down the economy.
This is not to say that all suddenly popular channels are ad fraud. And it seems in character for YouTube to put a blanket constriction instead of doing the trickier job of dealing with separating genuine viral hits from fraudsters.
Or maybe they're working on something more nuanced but rolled out a rough measure to stem an aggressive wave of ad fraud. We'll never know because companies are tight lipped about that sort of thing.
Given this is clearly meant for the 'First Amendment applies to private entities' crowd, its meant to rile people up, just like Infowars.
Web3 fixes this shit.
Let's see, what do I know that's decentralized?
Ah, Web1 and the Internet. HTTP, SMTP, FTP, etc. How are they doing? Ah, right, in practice the protocols people really care about like HTTP and SMTP became oligopolies.
What exactly does Web3 add to prevent this <<social>> problem?
These(software & legal arguments) all are irrelevant considering the fact that the web is hardware-wise not decentralized.I've seen this weak argument from smart people who argue that everyone can buy their own equipment, start their own ISP(which they can't, legally speaking, without going into a centralized process) and go through the process of creating one's own network that's being piped into the internet, but besides the fact that it defeats the point, ~nobody has access to that hardware in the consumer space.(There are few interesting projects existing but those are extreme outliers).
To continue your point and to reinforce it: software decentralization being useless, web3 will solve almost nothing, even in the best case scenario: where we defeat performance & "cultural" issues (NFTs, shittyverse, secure money, etc).It became a platform for the big players to show a shiny new big toy to the masses, one where security is improved; but security for the user is irrelevant from the POV of a company which seeks usage & entrapment.
