My Magnificat

Our minister this week has challenged us to write our own Magnificat.  Yes, I am Jewish and go to both church and synagogue.  So there.


I rejoice that I have found the love of my life and a sober way of living that is useful to society and others.

Glorify G-d

I glorify G-d for swooping me up as I was falling down a black hole, devoid of even gravity or light, no hope, no vision, no purpose.  I hadn't hesitated on the edge, I had jumped off, willingly, into this condition.  Worthless, throwing away everything for nothing, I called for help, and You were there.  What a messy inconvenience to calculate where I was in my fall, reach out, grab me and lift me up.  You did it anyway.  It is a debt I repay every day.

Look forward to the works of G-d

World transformation barely seems worth it, but then neither was I when it happened for me.  Regardless, You still love us.  That love will help us see the love of our siblings and rivals.  That love will cull destruction and violence among us.  That love shines on to each of us, waiting for us to open our eyes.  With You, G-d, we will.

Exalt G-d because

A catalog our Your magnifigance is beyond any mortal.  Great and small, seen and unseen, you try to guide us with daily miracles.  The founding of the state of Israel in the shadow of the Holocaust; the parting of the Sea of Reeds with the Egyptian army at our backs; the aim and power of David’s stone all testament to You, O G-d.  Still, we ignore you whenever we get a chance.  The Call of Abraham, promising to make of us a great nation, has been fulfilled.  Still, we turn our heads away from you.  There is a verified faith you have maintained over and over again, and we have no reason to doubt you now.  I have faith in that.  I have faith in that.


The Drug Dealer of Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris has a drug dealer.  She has publicly admitted to smoking pot.  That means she got possession of pot, somehow.  She either bought it, or someone else bought it and gave it to her.  Both options have serious implications because someone, somewhere is Kamala Harris’ drug dealer.

Kamala Harris has a drug dealer
Kamala Harris has a drug dealer
As Attorney General of California, Kamala Harris prosecuted drug dealers because it is a crime to deal drugs there.  Even marijuana.  This whole thing is funny since she really pushed the “justice should be the same for everyone” idea during the last Democratic debate when she is a perfect example of it NOT happening.

The obvious first point is her dishonesty and hypocrisy.  How can voters believe what she promises to do when her actions cross her words so starkly?  Basically, they can’t.

Not so clear is the cost to families to have a family member incarcerated.  Not Kamala Harris’ family, of course.  But many other ones.  Picture a family with someone in prison.  The family is missing an income.  Less money means more evictions and foreclosures.  Young family members will feel the tension and fear.  Their education and development will be disrupted, and even their living situations.

Children are growing and learning with half the guidance and support in the home.

Another serious concern is her lack of self-control. She couldn’t stop herself from committing a crime while an officer of the court and part of law enforcement herself.  She knew smoking - and buying - pot is illegal.  She also knew the professional cost of smoking pot.

And most importantly, who is this drug dealer?

Why is it funny that you put people in jail for smoking pot or selling pot, when you smoke pot yourself?

Did you arrest your drug dealer?  Does your drug dealer feel somewhat safe from prosecution because they are YOUR drug dealer?  These are serious questions Kamala Harris has to answer for the American public to judge her fitness to be President of the United States.


Cenk Uygur Running for Congress

Well, that's it.  I am cancelling my Hulu and Netflix subscriptions.  Nothing is going to be more entertaining than watching Cenk Uygur in the congressional race in California's 25th district.

Cenk Uygur is an extremely intelligent person who has built a media platform on YouTube called The Young Turks that is very strong, very supportive and vocal.  There, Uygur has been calling out the leaders of the Democratic Party in the U.S. Congress for many years and just got sick of waiting for change, I guess.  It is not my congressional district, but I will give him some money anyway.  This show will be worth it. His other accomplishments include starting a political action committee, giving a platform for progressive candidates across the country, and siccing his audience on groups.

Uygur's insightful political commentary was always a reason to watch The Young Turks.  It will be great to see him use his command of facts and policy in debates.  He excels at breaking down issues to explain to his YouTube viewers.  He also delights in exposing the political back-scratching behind policy decisions.  Listening to Uygur's analysis creates a picture in my mind of competing factions, interests and resources, which makes it much easier to understand the dynamics of what is really going on.

The Young Turks' viewers trend younger, which will be an advantage as younger voters are often overlooked in polling data.  Uygur's progressive politics resonate with a generation of people who feel cut up by the current economic system.  His vision will offer hope, but more than the mere slogan of Obama.  When he speaks about laws, it is often with specifics.  When Obama ran on "hope and change" and "yes, we can" it was like buying a soda or a pair of sneakers, only instead America voted for a box that we could not see inside.  Later, we found out what was in it: surveillance, foreclosures, mass deportations and assassination of American citizens, and to be fair, an attempt at universal health care.  Uygur is not vague in his policy positions.  He has years of commentary outlining his views.  Nobody is voting for a mystery box when they vote for him.

But one of Uygur's strengths, strong feelings about policy, could also cause him problems.  He is very excitable and can start yelling when he feels strongly about a topic.  That may not translate very well on the campaign trail, but it will make great t.v.

And his t.v. advertising promises to be very watchable.  Remember his anti- Ted Cruz ad?  He told Texas voters that Cruz had been unmanned by Trump.  That kind of campaign rhetoric is what California voters will enjoy once this race really gets started.

In the end, win or lose, the race for California's 25th Congressional seat will be high entertainment.


My Media Diet and Vivid Dreams

I forgot about this:  when you temper your media intake, you start to get very vivid dreams.  It’s been happening to me every night now.  When I wake for my morning meditation and fill in my bullet journal, I write my latest dream.  Wow.  Some doozies that I do not want all over the internet.

Consuming media without a media diet plan puts a big fuzzy wall between me and my reactions to events in my life.  I don’t understand all these dreams or what they mean, but something is waking up inside me and kicking my insides.  And it was there all the time, just not being heard.  That’s the scary part.

Like any dreams, if they are not written down, they are forgotten.  And each morning I try to convince myself that this dream will be remembered.  It is different today - but it isn’t.

If you follow this plan, be prepared for all manner of weirdness in dreams.  Not scary, just odd.


My Social Media Diet or Creating a Mind Sculpture

We Need a Social Media Diet  

Don’t flinch just yet.  Everyone needs to think about and plan what our minds and attention will consume.  So much content is available:  YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and more.

I read online that the last hour before going to bed and the first hour getting up should be without any electronic screen time.  Before going to bed, lay out your clothes and prepare for the next day.  Sounds like the habit of a winner, so let’s include that as part of the plan.

The guy also talks about spending his time creating content, rather than consuming it.  Not everybody is up for that, but with three blogs and a podcast and two YouTube channels, I have no excuses.

Goals of a Social Media Diet

So what would be the goal for a media diet?  For a food diet, there is a weight goal.  For a media diet, there should be goals, too.  Like hobbies, interests, entertainment, education.  Historical videos are fun.  Shouldn’t there also be production goals?  If you have them, that is.

We make a choice about what to eat, and how that will make us feel.  Shouldn’t we also do the same thing for our minds and mood?  Wouldn’t it be a good idea to step outside ourselves and take a meta look at what we want out of our life before deciding what to watch or read?

My Social Media Diet

I don’t know what is right for anyone else, but my social media diet will be one part production for four parts consumption.  It will be split into one fifth pure fun with animals and jokes and silliness.  Everyone needs that in their lives.  Another three fifths will be news and politics - from all sides.  I enjoy listening to Ben Shapiro and Jimmy Dore.  So what.  The last fifth will be hobbies: ham radio, knitting and making soap.

“Social Media Diet” 

Maybe “diet” is the wrong word.  Diets are notoriously ineffective in the long run.  “Media Plan” sounds too corporate.  “Media sculpting” means you are doing the creating.  “Media sculpture?”  There are some artists out there who already claimed that phrase.

I hesitate to use the term “information” since it is so long and cumbersome to say.  We need to make this snappy.  “Brain food” comes to mind, but its already been taken.  Or “Brain growth plan.”  Too long.  OK.  “Mind sculpture.”  Yes, that’s it!

By consciously deciding what I feed my visual senses, I have a “Mind Sculpture” plan.  I think about what I want the end result to be, and plan, roughly, how that will happen.

Let’s see how this goes.  Will keep you updated.


Tulsi Gabbard For President

Tulsi Gabbard for President

The recent "Tulsi works for Putin" schtick can be understood best as a fight between old media and new media.  A classic power fight between wheezing old talking heads, their younger clones, and new media power brokers will show where the new election lines are drawn.  Newsflash: Tulsi will win.

Hillary Clinton is running a '90s media smear campaign that really worked for her and her husband in the past - the way past.  Clinton whispers her vengeful stories to stooges on cable tv and foolish New York Time op ed writers.  Feeling safe, they repeat them without fearing real consequences.

Old Media and The Clinton Playbook

Why not?  It is the same playbook Clinton used in her failed 2016 election campaign:
  1. court mass media, 
  2. take voters for granted, 
  3. rely on proxies to say nasty things for you, 
  4. insult and dismiss half of the electorate. 
It didn't work last time, but as Clinton apparently never took responsibility for her role in her own defeat, she blindly uses the same approach again.

Court Mass Media

The '90s media landscape was exclusively mass media, so a strategy targeting those influencers was smart.  Prescient was Bill Clinton's focus on alternate paths to voter attention, like talk shows. It was how he got around the universal dismissal of him as a serious candidate by the "serious" political press after his sex scandals.  

But this approach is outdated.  There are thousands of information sources for voters now.  The personal relationship approach will not control political watchers because there are simply too many thinkers in the political space.  The rah-rah for the "weapons of mass destruction" leading to the Gulf War and Russiagate undermined credibility for mass media outlets anyway, and people look to other voices to trust.

Take Voters for Granted

Hillary Clinton neglected Michigan and other rust belt states during the 2016 Presidential election.  She dismissed HALF OF AMERICA as "deplorables."  Not very persuasive.  Clinton took the voters of the rust belt for granted because of their union affiliation, not learning the lesson that Reagan taught:  people make up their own minds.

In the frame of this Tulsi Gabbard dialogue, Clinton assumes that the support of the media "elites" will lead to the sheeplike support of Americans.

Rely on Proxies To Say Nasty Things For You

Bakari Sellers accused Tulsi Gabbard of treason on CNN.  This charge has been supported by Hillary Clinton by getting other people to repeat the accusation.

Tulsi Gabbard shows her understanding of modern media when she pins the "Russian asset" smear directly on Hillary Clinton.  Clinton is used to dodging the stench of a shit show by getting others to say her insults.  Part of that tactic was the pretense of cable t.v. hosts that she didn't really say it at all, but that somebody else did.  Now, Tulsi Gabbard's voice can appeal directly to voters, much like Bill Clinton did in playing the saxophone on late night television.

Insult and Dismiss Half of the Electorate

Clinton also insults everyone in the military by implying that one of them would betray their country with treason.

In this message struggle with Tulsi Gabbard, Clinton is dismissing anyone under the age of 50.  Younger voters don't believe that the New York Times is always right.  They don't have t.v.'s or watch cable "news."

The Tulsi Gabbard Winning Strategy

Tulsi Gabbard takes a sniper shot approach to a crowded Presidential candidate field.  One by one, she takes out a frontrunner.  It worked for Trump, and it is working for her.  

Tusli Gabbard is an underestimated candidate.  She won't be the Democratic nominee, but she will beat out almost everybody else that is running.  Her best weapon are her deadly barbs that really stick.  Ask Kamala "I put people in prison for doing what I did" Harris.  Gabbard is better at this tactic than even Trump.  

Tulsi Gabbard knows how the current information ecosystem works. When she hits something, it reverberates.  All the Clinton machine can do is get their flying monkeys on cable television and op-ed pages to repeat what she tells them to say.  Too bad they are no longer influencers like in the '90s.  

Tulsi Gabbard will beat the Democratic Party machine because its relevance and power are sliding out from under them.  They are using a playbook of a bygone day.  What is supposed to be a kill shot will only show everybody their irrelevance.

The Democratic Party relies on big donors, reporter relationships and endorsements.  Stronger tools have been forged, and they are about to find out the hard way.

As I like to say to people I hate:  "I wish you the best of luck."


The Revised Boy Scout Manual by William S. Burroughs

William S. Burroughs - Beat Writer

The Revised Boy Scout Manual  by William S. Burroughs - a review by Christine Axsmith

What a long way of saying “the pen is mightier than the sword.” 

The book is disturbing, and was probably meant to be.  It is also a book that cannot be ignored. Burroughs made too many accurate predictions for the politics of the Information Age we now live in.  

Burroughs is at the same time prescient and reflective.  He predicts the political impact of electronic information distribution, but what he describes is an extension of Nazi tactics.  He uses the term “virus” to explain the spread of an idea throughout society. He describes a “meme.” He predicts the impact of handheld recording devices to challenge the entrenched power of institutions.

Burroughs is not content to deliver these gems without graphic and disturbing descriptions of violent crimes.  As in, that’s most of the book. If we view that choice as strategy, maybe the trudge through blood has purpose.  It could be an exorcism of base impulses, only to bring the revolutionary down to earth and point them towards non-violent means of information warfare, with a warning that violent means lead to failure.

The Revised Boy Scout Manual begins by describing the limits of violence as a political weapon in the 20th century.  “With heavy weapons five percent of the population can hold down ninety-five percent by sheer force.” This book tells the aspiring revolutionary how to fight back with such firepower imbalances.  

Burroughs’ general plan for revolution has three parts: a political reform party whose actions are completely aboveboard and legitimate, an ostensibly unrelated terrorist group that deflects blame while it strikes; and reactive political media that advance a “law and order” narrative.

What Burroughs doesn’t see, or mention, is that Hitler used the same plan.  Hitler led the Nazi party, and pretended that the Brownshirts were not connected or coordinated.  Then Nazis deflected blame for civil unrest onto the Communists and the Jews, who were the excuse for civil law suspension.  Then Hitler seized power.

This book relies on the naive perspective that only one side, the left, would employ these tactics.  In Burrough’s fantasy that is this book, the far right would not be copying and employing his methods.  They would hopelessly grasp authoritarianism, which would in turn fuel the leftist revolution even more. Of course, if the left had actually followed Burroughs’ game plan, the right would quickly notice and begin copying tactics.  

Instead, the far right has taken up the formula Burroughs describes, and the left is copying and reacting to it.


Burroughs’ plan for revolution has violent terror groups killing people while the front-facing political party has plausible deniability for the bloodshed.  We can draw parallels to right-wing terror attacks and their distancing from the Republican party. However, the rhetoric of some Republican leaders ties them together.  Referencing refugees as an “invasion force” can be directly tied to the armed militias at the U.S. southern border pretending to arrest people. What they are really doing is threatening poor people, mostly women and children, with guns.  People who are scared, hungry and thirsty. Trump call for reports to be violently attacked, and an entire newsroom is gunned down.

On the left, language of “Russian collusion” has had equal value.  Trump Derangement Syndrome, a phrase coined by Scott Adams, also leads to violence, as seen in the almost-disaster of the Congressional softball game shooting and beatings of people in red MAGA hats.

On both sides, the distancing from violent and more radical elements from the rhetoric of their political siblings serves the same purpose: ways to induce radical reactions without responsibility.  

Again, both extremes are using these tactics, not just one side as in Burroughs’ book.


Burroughs calls for a captive media outlet as part of his plan for thought revolutionaries.  I think we can call both MSNBC and FOX News captive media outlets at this point. The weakness in Burrough’s plan for revolution is not seeing that a tactic can be used by both sides at once.  The difference is FOX News supports the far right, and MSNBC supports the liberal establishment.

Burroughs gets points for his insight into information warfare.  He predicts memes and viral data and refers to its impact on the body politic and as a weapon of revolution. He predicts the creation of Fox News as an information and propaganda organ, but did not see the conversion of MSNBC to a countervailing role.  

When Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks hosted a show on MSNBC, he was explicitly told to support a Democratic administration in the White House.  When his critical thinking skills continue to exert themselves, he was let go. Rachel Maddow, another example, took up the chant of Russiagate as directly fed by the Hillary Clinton campaign and hasn’t shut up about it since - even after it has been disproven. The extent of MSNBC capture can be measured by how little the name “Reality Winner” is mentioned during Russiagate segments.

Again, it is Burroughs’ tactic of cheerleading media outlets.  However, he misses that anyone could do it, and it seems they have.  

He calls for eliminating words: “the” “to be” “is” “either/or” because these words support identities in people, and so their elimination would end conflict.  There’s a new take on identity politics. Again, advocating the use of thought as an effective weapon when out-gunned, this time through language control.  

The book also suggests:  random assassinations, rape (but only of women), bombs, rumors, kill lists.  Page one of the book describes blowing up the “economic system of the West” by attacking buildings in New York City, predictive of the 9-11 attacks.

Later, Burroughs touches close to his own life describing a wealthy respectable woman who is murdered and humiliated, and her son deciding to support the revolution and the gang rape of his sister.  He is describing himself, of course. Burroughs is the scion of a very wealthy family who decided to join the revolution. The older woman who commands respect would be his mother, who is the same person who is beaten and humiliated.  The young scion’s eyes widen with the fever of revolution as he leads the revolutionaries to gang rape his sister. No thoughts on the young man being raped, however. No mention of his being beaten and insulted. Damn, Burroughs must have hated women, as any revolutionary knows that men can be raped, too. Odd blind spot. I will leave it to greater minds to parse the Freud in that.  It is enough to say that I wouldn’t take Burroughs’ advice on how to fix my car, and I won’t heed his insight on gender issues.

It’s almost funny when Burroughs has the slightest realization that his script for revolution matches Charles Manson’s, who also thought random and senseless killings would spark a revolution.  He doesn’t quite accept it, though. Burroughs makes some distinction based on motivation of murders. He claims Manson’s only motivation was “crimes against property and crimes against persons.”  He ignores the Manson Family plan to start a race war. Manson’s drive was political. It was just as political as Burroughs. It’s just that Burroughs didn’t have the courage to look at his own recipe, because basically they were the same.

Burroughs calls the Ku Klux Klan a “criminal commune” to artificially separate them from his own tactics of political violence, similar to what he did with the Manson Family.  But of course the KKK is a violent political organization: it was created after Reconstruction to maintain white power, they used lynching and fire to enhance their power, and they used Jim Crow laws to prevent people from exercising their power. 

When you have to add footnotes to your revolutionary plan explaining the difference between the Manson Family and the KKK and yourself, maybe some introspection is in order.  Just saying.

However, The Revised Boy Scouts Manual is not only dripping in bloody suggestions.  Burroughs has visions of the good resulting from his revolution of thought. Society would form into small groups with similar interests, like fishing.  Soon, in Burroughs’ mind, criminals would just quit crime to pursue their personal interests. Police would lose too many officers to communes through resignation and personal choices.  Who wouldn’t rather go fly fishing? Then why do anything else?

Somehow, violent criminals in Burrough’s fantasy will stop committing crimes against people and property if given the chance to fish or something in what he terms MOBs, or loosely organized groups who Mind Own Business.  Because one thing an armed robber wants is to hook worms rather than threaten people for money, if given the chance.

This raises, once again, Burroughs’ personal perspective on the world.  He was a heroin-addicted scion from incredible wealth. Of course he would think that people who didn’t phone the cops for a little drugs would be the best to run the world, i.e., minded their own business.  He probably wished the entire world was made up of people like that. The kind that aren’t worried about their son’s substance abuse. The kind that didn’t worry about cleaning the streets and schools. The kind that didn’t worry about making a living at all, in fact.  Just like him. If people could haul off and do whatever they wanted to do, they would be doing it. If only people would leave him alone, he thought. He could live his life in peace and there would be no crime. You can see the appeal from his perspective.

Since then, society has created groups where like-minded people gather.  People join others interested in fly fishing, for example. He also describes our information diet and its influence on our political views.  This reality has been used to attempt to change elections. Yes, Facebook ads have been used to sway voter choices. That’s the purpose of ads.  But Burroughs is wrong to think such balkanization of interests shuts out other desires. You can enjoy fly fishing and still be angry at the mayor.  Burroughs’ formula assumes “minding own business” means a lack of concern for anything else - which turned out not to be true.  

The book itself is filled with lurid imaginings of the aforementioned tactics in action.  It is, in parts, gory, disgusting, clairvoyant and strategic. 


“The Revised Boy Scout Manual” introduces the concept of a “meme.”  Burroughs had the vision to see the intersection of propaganda and electronic communication in terms of political influence and persuasion.  He saw the power of memes operating as electronic rumors and thought changers, and the magnifying power of electronic communications.  

However, thought as a weapon is not a new idea, as any Nazi will tell you.


“You can do more to destroy enemies with tape recorders and video cameras than with machine guns.”  Burroughs anticipates recording devices in everybody’s hands. That was far-sighted. He didn’t envision everybody having a video camera on them at all times, but it was a good guess.  He also ties power shifts to the ubiquitous availability of information.  

The current political climate is certainly a case study of political change via public exposure.  Fights against unjust police shootings and imprisonments, rapes ignored by law enforcement, the water protector movement and more demonstrate the power of mass exposure that Burroughs predicted.  But mass exposure also brought us cat videos and the Kardashians. Screaming goat videos still have more views than any police shooting expose. The most profitable YouTube channel is a child who tells us what he thinks of toys.  The Young Turks, a very popular news network on Youtube, has four million subscribers; but NigaHiga, a comedy channel, has twenty-two million.


Of course history since has shown that fringes of the far right has employed Burrough’s ideas of mass and random killings.  And guess what? It didn’t work. His prediction of an opposing terrorist force just didn’t happen. The killings have not made American more extreme and punitive.  If anything, the opposite happened.  

The National Rifle Association has, for the first time in decades, lost ground politically and socially.  Youth, most impacted by mass shootings on a daily level, revolted in the opposite direction, but not with violence. Burroughs calls for random killings to ignite a authoritarian reaction which will only feed the revolution in the end.  However the right’s use of senseless violence has not birthed a left version of the same thing.  

If Burroughs’ revolutionary plan worked, far right political killings would cause a boomerang of leftist violence.  It has not.  

There has been a leftist reaction to right-wing political assassinations, but mostly a legal and non-violent one.  The question is, how would this feed into the agenda of a far right revolution, rather than defeat it? Income streams have dried up for the NRA, they have degraded public support, lost advertisers, lost television channels and are regularly called out on social media, as are associated politicians.  Was this Dylann Roof’s plan when he shot worshippers on a Sunday morning? The result of these attempts at race wars has been clear public will opposing that agenda. So Burroughs’ suggested tactic of mass killings is a failure.

The far right feels ever more under attack, but enough to fund a rightist revolution?  I don’t think so. Revolution requires youth, and that is one group that tilts left by a wide margin. 

Burroughs uses the word “assassination” to include killing the enemy’s word and image.  A modern example would be Scott Adams highlighting the MAGA hat as a symbol of support for Trump whose meaning was assassinated in the Burroughs’ sense and turned into a symbol of racism.

Another result of the random killing tactic is strangulation of radical voices on the right.  Right-wing groups like QAnon and people like Alex Jones have been sidelined from media platforms and all mainstream, and frankly, marginal media outlets.  Payment platforms like Patreon have banned them, causing funding to become scarce. Credit card companies won’t process their payments.  

The final history has not been written on our current political struggles.  Maybe these radical fringe groups are growing in the dark and will surprise us all.  But it doesn’t look that way.

The Revised Boy Scout Manual posited a revolutionary game plan.  Its tactics are being employed right now. They have not created a revolution.  Both left and right are using captive media outlets, memes, fake news, recordings and more. 

Burroughs was prophetic in seeing the acceleration of information warfare with electronic communications.  The end of the book lists weaponry and related countermeasures. His conclusion is that guns and bombs will lose.  The only weapon that could work is ideas, he writes. Again, a long and bloody way to say “the pen is mightier than the sword.” 


Susan Wojcicki and PhillyD and the Suggestion Algorithm

Changing the YouTube Suggestion Algorithm

PhillyD and YouTube Discussions

PhillyD has had discussions with YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki about their list of trending videos, which have long weighted corporate content unfairly. If you have the most views, then you should be on the most-viewed list. If you can’t created content that most YouTube users want to see, then you shouldn’t be on that list.

As long as YouTube is listening...

I am on YouTube far more than is good for me or anyone.  The algorithm goes in tight circles, recommending the same people and videos all the time.  It is tiresome.

YouTube Suggestion Algorithm Problem

By setting the YouTube recommendation algorithm to “following the buzz,” Google is only setting up its own failure. They may not know it yet, but if the only thing people are getting out of their product is buzz, it acts like mental candy. Sure, you want it all the time. Who doesn’t? But one day you will be sick of all the candy and reject the whole thing. It is inevitable. If human beings forever chose the buzz, we would not have survived as a species. So this proposal is a long-term survival strategy for the Alphabet Corporation as well.

There is an alternative.

Let users change their suggestion algorithms in user preferences.

I always want to see more content from smaller YouTubers and nothing about sports. Why can’t I choose that? Surely the YouTube algorithm can allow user input in terms of what percentage of smaller channels are suggested to me. I want to support local businesses rather than large chain stores, and my google search results should reflect that.

The Econo-Girl Suggestion Solution

It would not be hard to implement this change. Just break the code into sections, and make user input the driver of the algorithm.

So let the content providers set their video categories. Then, within those categories, let users define their preferences:

The goal is to maximize value to the consumer.  The current suggestion algorithm is based on feeding rats a sugar-based diet that will make them obese and starve them at the same time.

A rabbit hole is a waste of time.  Humans are going to dump something that wastes their time, eventually.  Survival demands it.