"This move was made only to benefit Google in someway."
Not Google. Somebody specific at Google - one of their VPs, the one
currently in charge of Youtube and Google+, who is feeding his own ego
at the expense of users and stockholders, alike. As was seen in the nym
wars incident, he enjoys making other people's choices for them -
answering the question floating around, of why creative freedom is being
suppressed - and hiding the contacts on the channels becomes a way of
forcing people to use Google+, his pet project, which I'm told wasn't
proving as popular as had been hoped.
Companies don't make decisions. People do, moved by motives which very
well may be completely self-serving. What the people in this discussion
don't seem to get is that there is a way to deal with a problem like
this. If enough people do something that noticeably, financially hurts
Google in direct response to the change, then the VP will be required to
set his ego to one side by law. It's called fiduciary duty. Google is required, by law, to act in the best interests of its stockholders.
The stockholders, as the aggrieved parties, are unlikely to care about
the VP's psychological quirks or self-actualization. Make the company
really hurt, and write to those stockholders, and you've got a good
chance of seeing action. Just sit here and flame the company
representatives, and scream about this, as many have, and nothing will
get done. People have been given a perfect easy, reasonable way of doing
that violates no part of the TOS, no law, is perfectly ethical, and
will provide them with immediate personal benefits, even if nobody else
ever does the same. Here - I'll even set up a redirect to it.
Now watch everybody ignore this, and continue doing nothing but
screaming en masse - a strategy that I have never seen work anywhere,
ever - until they give up, and use the new channels that they swore
they'd never have anything to do with. The VP and his supporters (or
opportunistic cronies) will look at these complaints and laugh, because
they know that the users can't sit here and scream forever, so all they
have to do when the users respond in this way is wait them out, and wait
for the drama to pass. If, on the other hand, we do something that is
fun for and benefits us, while not doing much that is good for them -
making the new channels far more of a problem for them than they are for
us - then we can sustain that forever. On those terms, the Youtube
staff can't realistically hope to win a test of wills with us on the
subject because we'll be having a good time, and they won't.
Why is this concept so hard for people to get? Do they want to really
want to see anything change? Or do they just love the sound of their own
voices, as they scream, and not really want to get anything
constructive done, at all?