What inside information? I'm basing this on information from the outside, on people that monetize videos and content.

About your question, I would answer based on who's the boss of whom.

I believe the GP was being ironic. Since, without insider information, your "accuracy" claim seems like jaded opinion.

Yeah, I forgot HN commenters want things with proof even when it's glaring obvious what's happening.

Appeal to common sense is an informal logical fallacy so you could try to up your argumentation instead of complaining about HN commenters.

You're basically saying he has no proof, and therefore what he said only amounts to an opinion, and can be dismissed as such.

The thing is, it doesn't matter whether he's got proof or not. He's free to present his thoughts, and you're free to ignore them, or perhaps more productively: consider them.

Extremely few discussions are formal debates. So instead of behaving like you're in one, how about just listening to what people have to say, and evaluating whether you think there's any merit to it, or whether it might be true, etc?

Someone says something, you react to it. Then you say something, and someone reacts to what you said.

Now let's go through his post as an example:

>>> Of course, for the people that matter (especially advertisers) can see through it.

- "Hmm.. Well, I guess that's certainly possible. Perhaps even likely! After all, lots of people are complaining about Google+, and it really does seem like Google is doing their best to count everyone using YouTube as a Google+ user. Advertisers are likely to notice what's going on, just like you and me on Hacker News, and they won't like it."

>>> Some content producers are already moving away from YT, at the same time AdSense is the one that still pays the best.

- "I suppose moving away from YT would make sense for an advertiser that's fed up with Google's behaviour. Hmm.. I wonder if AdSense actually does pay the best. Maybe this guy knows something I don't, or maybe his claim is inaccurate. Oh well!"

.. Maybe something like that?

The thing is, I was responding to this:

> This is a very accurate description

Which you've very conveniently omitted.

I wasn't talking to you though, unless you're a sock-puppeteer, but whatever.

    > The thing is, I was responding to this:

    >> This is a very accurate description

Is it not?

    >>> I think Google is trying to inflate its G+ numbers in
    order to seem competitive with Facebook, so its
    basically a dick-size contest with users getting caught
    in the middle.

At any rate, my point still stands. This is not a formal debate.

This is a discussion, not a peer reviewed paper, which would be obvious to anyone, but anyway I wouldn't waste my time discussing with HN idiots anymore.

Here's my argument: more traffic/users/signups equals more money. It's simple.

>I wouldn't waste my time discussing with HN idiots anymore

Well, you certainly know how to be convincing.