It’s not ideal as upvote/downvote for filtering trash, but it should still help.
Making the dislike count private across YouTube
951–960 of 1001 posts
Re: Making the dislike count private across YouTube
#952> Clearly a flawed conclusion. For the result of their experiment they deduced what they wanted it to say. Because we can easily say that the effect is not "dislike attacking" but other effects: - shy people more afraid to give their opinion not knowing that others have done the same. - the feature feeling useless, as even if you dislike, you might thing that you click will worth nothing as no one will see it. Imagin…
Completely agreed with this. If you make a feature less useful than before of course it will be engaged with less. A radical approach in the similar vein would be to just turn off half your infra and add a ton of latency to YouTube. That would similarly solve the "dislike attacking behavior" altogether at the cost of having your existing users hate your product, with the added bonus of server cost savings.
- Site is usable.
- Site updates to significantly less usable version but keeps the old version around.
- They keep breaking things about the old version.
- "Oh no one uses the old version anymore, let's EOL it to save resources."
Re: Making the dislike count private across YouTube
#953Hiding the dislike info on POTUS seems important now. Hiding the dislike info on CNN seems important now. Public trust in government is low. Public trust in corporate media is low. It's been policy to manufacture consent in the US for quite a while now. Hard to say this move isn't more of the same, and it's equally hard to say it helps more than it hurts too.
It was funny when Baidu censored Winnie-the-Pooh memes. When YT censored "Let's go Brandon" videos, I chuckled, but the humor was darker. Now they are hiding downvotes. On the US "National News" YT channel, almost all of the promoted videos are downvoted. I'm always amazed at the discrepancy between what's promoted in the MSM and where popular opinion is. Meanwhile top podcasters routinely trounce MSM viewership rati…
This is my thought as well.
Its funny how quickly we've gone from people trying to redefine censorship, i.e.: "it's not censorship if a corporation does it!", to just blatantly pathetic attempts to squash dissent like this latest move.
Re: Making the dislike count private across YouTube
#954At the end of the day you are manufacturing consent for your users as per the demands of your corporation friends and advertisers. You want a happy place where everything is happy and joyful with no abuse and attacking but alas that is not the world in which we live. Have fun and make profits hacking the brains of the viewers you "say" you care about for your advertisers and corporate friends.
Peace out!
Re: Making the dislike count private across YouTube
#955Re: Making the dislike count private across YouTube
#956I fundamentally disagree with the idea that a dislike is "harassment" or an "attack". This really reads to me like Google is upset by the politically contentious videos that do get ratioed, and this is politically motivated on their part. Generally speaking, YouTube content creators trend left on US political issues, but YouTube's audience reflects the mainstream and trends slightly to the right on US political issues, which means that left-leaning politically contentious videos tend to get ratioed, and that includes left-adjacent issues that aren't strictly political but have been politicized.
Either YouTube is a place for creators to put themselves out there and engage with their audiences... or it's another place that is corporately whitewashed to be as inoffensive (and thus uninteresting and shallow) as possible. Historically it's been the former, and I see this as another in a long string of moves by Google to turn it into the latter... despite that being exactly what people fled from when they started spending more hours watching YouTube than they did television. It seems Google doesn't know or doesn't care what their audiences actually want.
Re: Making the dislike count private across YouTube
#957Also, coming soon: User comment: DISLIKE Other users click like button on comment a ton of times... Next official move? Making comments visible to subscribers and premium users only... Google is going against basic human nature here and it's Orwellian as fuck. Next unofficial move? Censor comments containing, "DISLIKE" because the ones doing it will stand right out same as they did before and having them not stand ou…
How is it a "trend"? Facebook never had dislike. So does instagram. Even Twitter never had a downvote as far I can remember. Issue is that Google is removing it after entire YouTube culture was built around it.
The trend is increased control through corporations and a reduced mass signal potential. This action is but one of many. Reddit modified r/All a while back to avoid mass signalling and or prioritize "authoritative" front page material.
Others have done similar things.
Twitter put features in for "authorities" to be marked in ways, verified users. Also, provided for broadcast only type posts, where comments are limited to a select few, or not at all allowed.
It's worth a deeper look back too:
Prior to the Internet, and prior to the actions of Reagan and Clinton to deregulate media, we had many independent publishers doing news, commentary (with fairness requirements on said commentary), and other works. No one was allowed to own a significant portion of all that, and the check and balance was all the peers questioning one another as well as the targets of their journalism.
Additionally, news was done as a public service, in the public interest, and that's what broadcast licenses were all about. They get a magic money machine in return for helping us all in a civic way by doing news.
After Reagan repealed the fairness doctrine, we got the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
Side bar: Limbaugh was an exemplary broadcaster. His unusual talent essentially unbridled by the lack of the fairness doctrine allowed for intoxicatingly good political talk. Just saying, his own skill was a factor in all this. End side bar.
After Clinton relaxed ownership rules, mega networks were born, and very quickly gobbled up a lot of news networks and also began doing news for profit, made possible by the larger network size as well as no need to be fair, or even accurate in news and or commentary.
Side bar: Fox won in court when challenged on it's right to force journalists to lie and or produce material they themselves do not believe in. This can and is a condition of employment. End side bar.
With the rise of the Internet came "new media" and the most striking quality was the population once again getting news and commentary produced from a labor, or populist point of view. This has naturally proven quite popular, and quite painful for big corporate media who is not used to having to deal with both feed back and competition not playing by the same rules it plays by.
Populists shot right to the top of the charts and captured younger media consumers, starting with a lot of Gen X and younger. Corporate media, big networks saw aging demographics, and the trend was clear.
They either need to find a way to compete, or new media was gonna have to be handicapped before it was too late!
And that's one trend, biasing mass signaling away from that which could challenge, or dissent from the establishment narrative.
Removing likes is straight up hiding the fact that big media being called authoritative, allowed to fact check without itself being fact checked to the same standards, or by those it has some authority over, is all very unpopular and not trusted very well at all and the demographics on that extend all the way up through old age today.
The young people don't even bother watching. Older people are questioning it all with increased frequency.
Putting it all on You Tube went like most of us thought it would: Yawn.
Bundling it with entertainment pulled the numbers up a little.
Modifying the recommendation algorithm pulled numbers up a bit more, while at the same time stunting the growth of new media in a painfully obvious way.
Still? No joy.
Now, hiding the data needed for the general public to understand those things along with increased censorship and rule changes intended to further hobble popular news and commentary that challenges the establishment is common and growing increasingly overt.
This brings us to present day "trends" and I hope a bit of context helps to understand what I am getting at here.
Re: Making the dislike count private across YouTube
#958Bummer. 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…
I always found this information rather useless myself, so I don't see it as a huge deal. More often that not when I see a video with tons of dislike it's because it's been brigaded by an adversarial community and not really an indicator of the value of the content. In my experience it's more of a "controversial opinion" indicator than a "bad video" indicator. >There's only been a handful of videos out of hundreds tha…
Strongly agree. For example in HN itself if someone poses a fact-based positive opinion about China, it is down-voted whenever Americans are online and voting (does not happen when Europeans are online).
So dislike/down-vote has 0 value. In fact, majority of the comments in this thread are against Youtube, which tells me that Youtube has made the correct decision.
Re: Making the dislike count private across YouTube
#959This is part of a wider trend in the corporate internet of getting rid of visible user interaction to stop publicising user opinion. News publications have slowly gotten rid of comments sections, Google itself (an entity quite close to the USG) is following suit. Of course I suspect that the idea here is less about creator choice, since they can already hide and filter user interaction to their hearts content and mor…
Slowly? I havent seen comment on majority of new sites for years.
On the other hand: I'm not shocked, majority of stuff written there was basically trash.