Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Making the dislike count private across YouTube

support.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: Making the dislike count private across YouTube

#481

Post by oooooooooooow »

ridaj wrote: post #417
nickjj wrote: post #67

Bummer. I often use like vs dislike ratios as a gauge on whether a video is worth watching. If I see a 3,000 up / 48 down video on a topic I'm interested in there's a really good chance the video is great. I'm a small time creator (~13.5k subs) and don't care at all about upvotes or downvotes being public. There's only been a handful of videos out of hundreds that received more downvotes than expected because the vid…

> There's only been a handful of videos out of hundreds that received more downvotes than expected because the video was posted on a place out of my control and folks didn't like that. Yes. People downvote based on their expectation. So you can have content that you would probably find bad that has a lot of upvotes because it has a niche that likes it, and my sense is that the excursions in dislike ratio are more oft…

You have always been able to hide the like/dislike count on your published videos.

Let's not be stupid about this. The only people benefitting from this change are the shady ones.

Re: Making the dislike count private across YouTube

#483

Post by thamer »

glouwbug wrote: post #149
gitpusher wrote: post #95

RIP to one of my favorite YouTube comment formats: > " of people "

For me it will be this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ussCHoQttyQ

Unlike with the "k" suffix for thousands that we have today, YouTube used to show the unabbreviated number of likes and dislikes even for larger numbers of votes.

This video was remarkable for the fact that it maintained pretty much a perfectly equal number of likes and dislikes for years (rarely off by more than 1). It was a tacit agreement among viewers: if you saw a mismatched count, it was your duty to vote towards restoring the balance.

The two numbers are probably off by several hundred these days.

Re: Making the dislike count private across YouTube

#485

Post by Jensson »

Pxtl wrote: post #465

So, to clarify how HN's moderation works: Disagreeing with people vociferously: you get told off and soft-blocked from HN. Rampant conspiracy theories? Totally hunky dory. Seriously, look at the mayhem in these comment threads. This is Q-level madness.

You can't attack others in a discussion, no.

About conspiracy theories, assuming that policies created by known democrat supporters are influenced by what issues democrats faces isn't any more far fetched than assuming that policies created by known republican supporters are influenced by what issues republicans faces.

Re: Making the dislike count private across YouTube

#486

Post by supperburg »

This is terrible. The dislikes are often a source of ground truth and sometimes even comfort. Like when Gillette created an advertising campaign that promoted the idea of male original sin, the idea that men are intrinsically bad. Seeing that video in the wild might make you feel crazy but seeing that I was not alone in how I felt about that commercial made me feel like I wasn’t crazy.

Re: Making the dislike count private across YouTube

#488

Post by feoren »

bequanna wrote: post #386

> We’ve also heard directly from smaller creators, and those just getting started with their YouTube channel, that they are unfairly targeted by dislike attacks Wow. Well, the politically motivated truth behind this change is pretty darn obvious, right? If you're confused what I mean, check any US mainstream media video with an obvious political slant but pretending to be "objective news" and look at the like/dislike…

> an obvious political slant

I think it's worth really pondering this phrase. It's the kind of thing people just toss out without really thinking about what it means, in the hopes that it will produce automatic head-nods from the reader. When you are so deeply, heavily, unwaveringly invested in a very specific idea to the extent that anything that slightly disagrees with that idea has an "obvious political slant", you are literally brainwashed. I know that's an overused accusation, but it's hard to define "brainwashed" any other way; you've decided that your very small bubble of beliefs is the truth, and therefore any video that doesn't 100% conform to it is "obviously" politically biased and full of lies. And what does "politically" even mean? That word has just lost all meaning. Politics is just anything that affects people's lives.

The reality is that everything related to COVID or vaccines that isn't 100% Q-anon Trumpist cult-thumping is currently brigaded with downvotes. Do you not see the irony in rejecting everything outside of your bubble as obvious lies, while simultaneously calling for less censorship? All you're really saying is: we want every idea censored except for ours.

You used the word "obvious" twice, and the whole post has a "you know what I mean; wink wink, nudge nudge" vibe to it. I know I won't change your mind, but I just think it's worth pointing out to others to really just notice how weird that use of language really is. The Q-anon thought-virus is real and it has evolved to be very good at what it does. This kind of language is part of its infection mechanism. It's worth really examining.

Re: Making the dislike count private across YouTube

#489

Post by Loughla »

bequanna wrote: post #386

> We’ve also heard directly from smaller creators, and those just getting started with their YouTube channel, that they are unfairly targeted by dislike attacks Wow. Well, the politically motivated truth behind this change is pretty darn obvious, right? If you're confused what I mean, check any US mainstream media video with an obvious political slant but pretending to be "objective news" and look at the like/dislike…

>Wow. Well, the politically motivated truth behind this change is pretty darn obvious, right?

I still am very confused by what you mean and what you're getting at with this.

Post reply on HN