>>28854126>The cold hard truth is Youtube would hurt itself with artificially lowered viewer numbers and a for-profit business wouldn't have this problem for long.This isn't really true.
Are you aware that many VTubers have already said (and in some case, accidentally showed) that their personal viewer counts in their YT analytics page - which is only updated a day or two after the stream is over - showed higher numbers than their live viewers counter while the stream was going on? That should've been a good indication that YT undercounts viewers in their publicly displayed CCV counter.
YT sells the idea that their numbers are "genuine", so it's not a surprise that they prefer undercounting CCV than overcounting and including (too many) bots. As long as the final number (after the stream is processed, as displayed in the streamers' personal YT analytics page) is correct, I don't think they have any issue with it. Most business matters will be based on those analytics data, not some 3rd party sites tracking live viewership. The issue with this is that >we don't have access to that data, but it's not like YT cares about some virtual CCV horserace on 4ch.
>Many of /#/'s experiments are flawed and performed by people that want to see a certain outcome from the start.And I'm not sure how
>sit in a private, empty stream for 30'>stream's live CCV count remains at 0can be flawed? Some of /#/'s experiments indeed require certain amount of assumptions, but the experiment I just mentioned isn't one of those - so at least we know there are viewers who aren't counted for some reasons. Heck, another case in point: YT themselves said that they only count a view on multi-tab viewing for the focused tab, while Twitch counts it for all of them.
