[HN Gopher] YouTube deleting comments who criticize their hiding...
___________________________________________________________________
YouTube deleting comments who criticize their hiding of the dislike
count
Author : jafitc
Score : 294 points
Date : 2021-12-03 19:42 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| rob_c wrote:
| Lol.
|
| Seems great from a board room, YouTube is too big to fail in
| 2years...
|
| But this is just a signal that the platform is decaying to the
| latest generation of artists/creators...
|
| Shame that for now they have a stranglehold on money and
| advertisers.
| godshatter wrote:
| Likes and dislikes are a horrible way to judge a video, ime. I
| don't know who liked or disliked a video or for what reasons. A
| like by someone may be a good reason for me to watch the video
| where a like by someone else might be an excellent reason not to
| watch it. Similar for dislikes. Of the two, I guess I prefer
| likes. People who dislike videos are usually upset about
| something specific, often things I don't really care much about.
| People who like something generally actually like it, as far as
| I've seen.
|
| When I'm considering whether I might like to watch a video, I do
| the unthinkable and just give it a go for a few minutes if it
| looks like it might be interesting or entertaining. I don't
| really need aggregated opinions from random people on the
| internet to help me make my decision on whether I like it or not.
| I couldn't, for example, tell you if I'm currently seeing
| dislikes on videos even though I've watched a fair few of them
| recently.
| eddof13 wrote:
| I adblock youtube now and I cancelled premium due to their
| censorship
| ordiel wrote:
| I am more than ready to degoogle myself, if only my pinephone
| were fully functional :/. I need a phone that can support ANY OS
| of my choosing, not the one the vendor provides/allows, I am a
| paying google customer, drive and youtube, the former mostly due
| to the music, I guess its time to go back to the good old days.
| ARRGH!!! ;)
| isoskeles wrote:
| Why not make this an opt-in feature? That way, big media
| companies with a YouTube presence who constantly have often post
| videos with high dislike ratios can hide the fact (although,
| we'll know this because of the hidden dislikes).
|
| It's quite annoying when I'm looking at neutral, nonpolitical
| content, and I can't get a sense of whether or not other viewers
| hate it. I look at a decent amount of tutorial content for
| various things, and the like-dislike ratio is fairly indicative
| of whether or not the content is wrong or if I should even
| continue watching it.
| notriddle wrote:
| > although, we'll know this because of the hidden dislikes
|
| That's exactly the problem, though. Nobody hides the like bar
| unless they expect a bad rating, so a hidden like bar might as
| well just be all red (people tend to assume the worst).
|
| No matter what your view is on this (harassment or genuine
| negative sentiment, it doesn't matter) an optional like bar
| might as well be mandatory for all the good it does.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| It's stunning how often things like this get wildly upvoted. The
| video shows nothing at all about "YouTube deleting comments who
| criticize their hiding of the dislike count"; the guy shows a
| comment of his that has nothing to do with the dislike count
| getting deleted, although he asserts without evidence that this
| is related to a different comment he made (which was _not_
| deleted) regarding the dislike count. A lot of people are
| successfully exploiting HN to spread false stories about
| controversial events.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Watch the first few seconds of the video again, and then it's
| your own comment which makes no sense.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| This one's funny because the _actual_ behavior is egregious
| enough without having to be artificially inflated.
| Gigachad wrote:
| Tech companies get away with randomly and invisibly doing
| things to people which no one can verify or understand why. Yes
| of course we can't know why exactly this happened, but it's
| still youtube's fault for deleting all of these comments
| without explaining why.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| The unfortunate reality, as anyone who's had to moderate
| online spaces can confirm, is that unexplained shadowbans are
| a necessary tool. Turn on showdead on HN some time, and
| you'll see some great examples of smart, coherent people who
| are incredibly dedicated to ruining the quality of discourse
| and couldn't be stopped by lesser measures. I was a big
| opponent of shadowbanning too until I spent some time
| moderating a subreddit.
| jafitc wrote:
| Of course. You can't be 100% certain.
|
| You know what else you can't be 100% certain of? How many
| dislikes this video got.
|
| It's one thing how the comment disappears. It's a whole other
| thing how you are asked to "take a screenshot of the
| disappeared comment to investigate".
|
| If you feel this singles out Google, think twice. Yes, Google
| definitely wasn't afraid to meddle with its search results for
| its own gains before. But there are other companies having
| practices just as shady.
|
| Like "how the Apple Podcasts app went from a 1.8-star score all
| the way to 4.6 stars in a month without any actual fixes"
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/19/22791968/apple-podcasts-...
|
| Hiding dislikes, disappearing comments, tricking users into
| reviewing unrelated services.
|
| There is a broader issue unfolding recently about platforms and
| transparency.
| ragnot wrote:
| To put my tinfoil hat on: I believe that the recent crackdown on
| the dislike count and the twitter rule change/bot purging has
| been orchestrated by the Biden administration in an attempt to
| combat a repeat of foreign interference via social media.
| completelylegit wrote:
| If foreign governments can have a discernible effect on America
| because of a dislike button - removing it wouldn't make a
| difference.
|
| Removing the ability to _comment_ would be something
| different...
| Focalise wrote:
| I agree, Biden is regularly downvoted heavily. I would think
| primarily by Americans.
| KerryJones wrote:
| I would guess primarily by Right-wing Americans, the very
| Left-wing americans I know don't love him but wouldn't down
| vote him regularly.
| Eelongate wrote:
| The very left-wing Americans I know hated Trump a lot
| more than they love Biden. They have no particular love
| for Biden because Biden is not very left-wing at all.
| Biden comes from the old neoliberal contingent of the
| DNC, not the new lefty progressive camp. Biden is no
| Bernie or AOC and only has lukewarm support from very-
| left people, in my experience.
| ragnot wrote:
| I think it does make a difference. Its a small one, but one
| that hits home. After all, when you see those videos online
| of the Biden admin with 1000s of dislikes...don't you feel
| that there is a segment of people out there that don't go
| along with the cultural zeitgeist of the internet? That maybe
| left-wing opinions (although dominant on the internet) may
| have some push back in the real world? When you lose that
| ability to voice opposition you get something not exactly
| dystopian but something marching closer to it.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| I don't, and I think the strongest argument against the
| dislike counter is that it encourages people to. Dislike
| counts aren't an accurate metric of what people "out there"
| think because they're heavily dependent on who ends up
| seeing the video - it's easy for a video to have lots of
| dislikes even though it expresses popular views, or few
| dislikes even though it expresses unpopular views.
| tombert wrote:
| I definitely agree with this. If you go to _any_ video
| right now that even mentions vaccines you can look at the
| comments of people talking about how evil Pfizer and
| Moderna are, and it dominates the entire comment section.
| I 'm reasonably certain that a lot of these people are
| _looking_ for vaccine videos just to shit on them in the
| comments and downvote them.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Not to mention, regardless what most people think or ones
| self thinks, I didn't think, or didn't like, much of the
| most important information and concepts that have ever
| been told to me.
|
| It's fine to filter entertainment by taste and
| preference, but having news of the world treated exactly
| the same way is a problem. It's not only not a good idea,
| it's literally not sane.
| buerkle wrote:
| How do you figure left-wing opinions are dominant on the
| internet?
| snug wrote:
| So Youtube let him make a video but not make a comment? Something
| doesn't add up here...
| wnevets wrote:
| Do people actually look at the votes before watching a video? I
| don't think I've ever done that on YouTube. The outrage over this
| just seems so manufactured to me.
| jasode wrote:
| _> Do people actually look at the votes before watching a
| video?_
|
| Yes, lots of people do that to avoid wasting time on bad
| videos.
|
| Especially for product review videos or tutorials, the first
| thing I look at is the dislike count compared to the like
| count. If dislikes are high, it's because the reviewer didn't
| provide useful information. E.g. a "top 5 dash cams" where the
| video is simply a slide show of dashcams will have more
| dislikes than likes.
|
| Dislike counts may be unreliable for politics videos but it was
| an accurate indicator for other topics like DIY how-tos. With
| the dislikes gone, I now scroll through comments first before
| hitting play. (But some channels disable comments so that
| doesn't always work.) I hope Youtube brings the dislikes
| counter back as their policy change is very user hostile.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| I don't really watch YouTube much (I don't get sitting through
| somebody talking about something rather than just reading it
| myself) but I've seen a lot of people who _do_ use YouTube to
| find educational videos using the like /dislike ratio as an
| indicator of the quality of a video. I guess if you're about to
| invest a half hour in listening to somebody talk about math or
| computer programming, you want some indication that it's going
| to be a half hour well spent.
|
| I guess I do the same when I'm thinking about buying a book
| about a technical topic, after all - I read the amazon reviews
| to see if it's going to be a waste of my time.
| Drew_ wrote:
| You can get better feedback on whether a video is bad by
| skimming comments. You should also acknowledge that you may
| like content that is unpopular (highly disliked videos are
| never universally disliked).
| jasode wrote:
| _> You can get better feedback on whether a video is bad by
| skimming comments. _
|
| But many videos _disabled comments_ while the dislikes
| count was still visible to help decide.
|
| _> You should also acknowledge that you may like content
| that is unpopular (highly disliked videos _
|
| For non-politics or non-music videos such as how-to
| tutorials or product reviews, I've never experienced this.
| The crowdsourced dislikes was a very accurate indicator of
| a bad video and I've never disagreed with it.
| Drew_ wrote:
| Disabled comments is a very strong signal in its own
| right. Ratings can also be disabled and usually are as
| well. Either way, it is still very easy to discern
| whether the video you are about to watch is
| controversial.
| jasode wrote:
| _> Disabled comments is a very strong signal in its own
| right._
|
| It might be but often it's not. A common reason comments
| are disabled is that a female is in it which invites rude
| sexist remarks. For example, there was some advanced math
| university lectures taught by female professors and every
| one of them was spammed with _" men of culture, we meet
| here again"_. Understandably, the channel later disabled
| the comments out of respect for those women _but at least
| the dislike numbers were still visible_.
|
| _> , it is still very easy to discern whether the video
| you are about to watch is controversial._
|
| No, it's actually cumbersome and wastes extra time to
| determine if many how-to videos are bad quality without a
| dislike count. That's why so many are irritated that
| Youtube removed it.
| passivate wrote:
| The argument for "Nobody looks at it" logically leads to
| removing most features/buttons except play, but UI isn't
| designed that way for a single workflow/use case. I sometimes
| look to see if people overwhelmingly disliked the video.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Yeah it's definitely a vocal minority. I bet there is next to
| no drop in traffic on youtube or in ad revenue. For youtube
| it's probably a public opinion win.
| rbinv wrote:
| Yes, first thing. Anything with >=10% dislikes is usually not
| worth the watch imo.
| jcun4128 wrote:
| It's helpful to spot fake stuff like fake trailers or some kind
| of scam.
| rvnx wrote:
| From the perspective of YouTube, the goal is to increase
| engagement, so you end up watching more video content = you
| win. Though it's a pretty sad tactic and deceptive in the
| long-term.
| jcun4128 wrote:
| Yeah it's already employed where you can't tell how good a
| search result video is since the ratings aren't displayed
| there.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Agreed. Following the drama has been so stupid. I challenge
| everybody who has a problem with this to boycott YouTube.
| Kaze404 wrote:
| Watching any type of Minecraft tutorial on YouTube is
| impossible without dislikes. There's an insane amount of
| clickbait, including for contraptions that literally do not
| exist. It's crazy.
| pier25 wrote:
| Some times I do look at the votes while already watching the
| video, but that's it. Same with with the number of views.
|
| I have a feeling Youtubers are probably the segment most
| annoyed by the change, which happen to be the ones with the
| megaphone.
| dilap wrote:
| Honestly, I was surprised to find that I miss the downvotes. I
| did quickly use it as a sort of gauge of "is this chopped or
| not".
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| what does "is this chopped" mean? Is this a new Gen Z term
| that I've yet to hear?
| fletchowns wrote:
| It can be helpful on the DIY help videos (home improvement
| stuff, etc) where the author of the video may have something
| wrong or dangerous in the instructions. It's not the only
| indicator since we have comments as well, but it's certainly a
| useful indicator.
| Toutouxc wrote:
| Yes, I used to do that every single time, and I would Cmd+W out
| of it immediately if the like/dislike ratio looked suspicious.
| Plenty of other videos in the sea.
| TT-392 wrote:
| The youtube automatically deleting comments thing is strange, it
| happens to me quite often for no clear reason. I once left a
| commend on a veritasium vid where I got something wrong. Replies
| kept coming about what I got wrong. But anytime I edited the
| comment, or leaving a reply myself. The exact thing happened to
| my edits or replies as happened in the video.
|
| It is not like I can't leave comments anywhere like the guy in
| the vid, it just, sometimes happens with specific things, with no
| clear indication as to why it happens.
| rvnx wrote:
| It's likely that the reason the comments are deleted are due to
| the spam filter. I don't see the connection with a critic of
| the disappearance of dislikes.
| Aunche wrote:
| Youtube comments are incredibly plagued with spam. Every time I
| comment on video, I get a reply from a crypto scammer.
| ollien wrote:
| Google does this as a whole, IME. A body shop did a really
| shoddy repair and when I went to check my review later, it was
| gone. I don't understand why; it shows when I'm logged into the
| original Google account, but not otherwise.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| I can see why people would be annoyed at being shadow banned.
| Alternatively get your circle of friends to upload videos to your
| own site and manage the comments/spam as you see fit. I am not
| convinced by the arguments that Youtube is needed to handle
| bandwidth unless you are popular in which case you can probably
| afford throwing a few small CDN's at the problem. The harder part
| would be finding advertising partners and embedding code for
| sponsors but apparently some youtubers are finding ways to do it.
| spiderice wrote:
| > Alternatively get your circle of friends to upload videos to
| your own site and manage the comments/spam as you see fit
|
| I'm confused by your suggestion. I have no interest in watching
| videos that my friends are uploading (because my friends aren't
| uploading). How would having a site where my friends post
| videos help this situation?
| EarlKing wrote:
| You really don't need Youtube for that. You need infrastructure
| and you need monetization. The former you can achieve today
| using any service provider with autoscaling (i.e. AWS,
| Rackspace, Linode, and a hundred others too numerous to list
| here). The latter you can achieve through any number of ad
| exchanges that handle pre-roll ads and banners. Youtube is
| handy primarily in being a one stop shop for both of those
| things and more. It allows the technically illiterate a place
| to vent their spleen without having to know anything about the
| internet works... including, I might add, how to actually
| market their works so they get eyeballs on them. If, however,
| you have an IQ higher than your shoe size and can manage the
| above, including figuring out how to circulate your content to
| places where potential viewers are so you don't need to rely on
| Youtube's algorithm, then you can make a go of it yourself and
| win. Youtube is betting, quite correctly, that most of you will
| never do that.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| I agree with all of this. That's why a small number of people
| and their circles won't be a threat to Youtube at all. Even
| the handful of popular Youtubers moving to self hosting
| probably won't get their attention for some time. And yeah,
| most non technical people won't be going down this path any
| time soon. That said if each small circle of people had a
| couple geeky friends and pool together some money they can do
| it. It's happening albeit it very slowly. Too slow for YT to
| notice or care about the insignificant churn-and-burn. I
| would not be surprised if there were also a chunk of
| youtubers that don't even want monetization.
| dynm wrote:
| I find this debate a little strange. My position is that youtube
| is a private company, they should be allowed to do whatever they
| want, and people should be able to choose a video service that
| meets their needs. If you feel that youtube is so dominant that
| this is cramming a "no dislikes" policy on the whole world, isn't
| the problem really that you think youtube is a monopoly, not
| dislikes per se?
|
| Edit: I clearly didn't word this well, because people are
| responding to me with things I agree with. Let me try again.
| Certainly, everyone can and should complain about this if you
| want to! (You have my thanks in this case, I don't like it
| either.) I'm just saying that in a "normal" situation you'd be
| able to respond to this change by switching to a competitor. I
| don't think the complaints are strange but rather the _lack_ of
| complaints about the fact that there are (sorta /kinda) no
| alternatives.
| bobthechef wrote:
| So being a private company means no one can criticize you and
| the detrimental effect you're having on public life? Besides,
| that YouTube is a monopoly isn't the main problem. Few people
| complain about utilities that work well. It is rather that YT
| has done harmful things as a monopoly.
|
| The public/private distinction is important to respect, but
| according to reason. They don't live in hermetically sealed off
| universes as some libertarians would have you believe. Just as
| government can overstep, so can private business.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"youtube is a private company, they should be allowed to do
| whatever they want"
|
| Yes? But this isn't the source of why people are upset. As far
| as I can tell, no one is protesting YouTube's _ability_ to do
| what they did. No one is demanding the government force YouTube
| to reverse this decision.
|
| I also feel like reflexive arguments like "So-and-so is a
| private company and can do whatever they want" is unhelpful and
| irrelevant to the discussion. Do I really need to be reminded
| that some giant corporation has control over their own
| platform? Was I ever under the illusion otherwise? Why is
| corporate criticism met with a reminder that they had the right
| to make the decision?
|
| Additionally, the entwined mindset of 'you can just go
| somewhere else if you don't like it' is also unhelpful. Very
| few decisions like these are bona-fide deal-breakers.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| No one has argued Youtube isn't allowed to do it. It is just
| customers complaining about the move. If McDonalds got rid of
| their Big Macs, people might complain about it, but that
| doesn't mean that McDonalds has a hamburger monopoly or that
| the complainers think McDonalds did something illegal or
| something they weren't allowed to do. It is just customers
| complaining about a feature they liked being removed.
| klyrs wrote:
| If you go to the store, demand a Big Mac, and complain to all
| present that the Big Mac got cancelled, then they'd ask you
| to leave. And, sure, folks would be upset about being asked
| to leave.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Everything stems from YT being a monopoly, but since YT is so
| ubiquitous it can feel good to vent/rant with everyone else
| about something we all agree on, and here it's that the dislike
| counter was removed for an arguably bad reason.
| crisdux wrote:
| I don't see how that is relevant to this debate. Of course they
| are free to make product changes. As a user I am free to
| dislike it and complain about it in an effort to get it to
| change. What do you suggest we do? Should we all just shut up?
| I've been a paid youtube premium member since the beginning. As
| well as a youtube tv subscriber. They should take user feedback
| seriously. But they aren't.
|
| I use youtube for entertainment and learning. This change has
| seriously made youtube less useful to me on the learning side
| because the dislike count was a good signal to the quality of
| the information in the video.
| dynm wrote:
| I see what you're saying. Certainly, I didn't mean to imply
| that anyone isn't entitled to complain about it! I should
| have worded what I was saying differently: There are
| tradeoffs in having dislike counts visible. Having it will be
| better for some people, not having it will be better for
| others. So if we only have one only service that provides
| video to everyone, then we're stuck in a situation where one
| of these groups has to get a worse experience.
| [deleted]
| Lammy wrote:
| These "private companies" are effectively governments of their
| own. Capital is global and claims no single nationality.
|
| "'cause you are the government. You are jurisprudence. You are
| the volition. You are jurisdiction. And I make a difference
| too."
| passivate wrote:
| Public debates around policy changes are just another feedback
| mechanism to let companies know when they effed up. Its up to
| YouTube to consider how much they value it.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Nobody is asking the government to step in to stop Youtube from
| making the change. People are just complaining about the
| change, like they would for any other change a company may
| make.
| ambrozk wrote:
| They're a private company who is free to do what they want, and
| the people complaining are private individuals who are free to
| do what they want. There's no assault on anyone's liberty in
| either direction. Companies can freely modify their products,
| and customers are free to be pissed off when they do. In this
| case, people feel that YT is removing dislikes to prevent PR
| damage to brands and individuals who post unpopular videos on
| their website. They think Google is prioritizing its profits at
| the expense of their product. Let them complain.
| akomtu wrote:
| YT is a private company on paper. In reality it's a fiefdom
| that has complex relationships with the emperor of the White
| House. The YT fief has a good deal of influence on the empire's
| subjects, the fief decides what they get to see, the emperor
| himself uses YT to speak to the public, and thus the fief has
| soft power over the emperor. It so hapoens that the emperor is
| wildly unpopular, his edicts on YT get wooed by peons, but the
| emperor also has power, and can force his will onto the fief in
| many ways. YT had to yield in this case, perhaps in exchange
| for a small favor from the emperor.
| kunagi7 wrote:
| Pretty much, YouTube is for video watching what IE used to be
| for browsing back in the obscure IE6 times. Unless you live in
| China where it's blocked.
|
| Some countries (mostly of the EU) already try to enforce some
| control against this kind of monopolies but they are still too
| bland.
|
| And competition fails to appear thanks to the WhatsApp effect.
| If most of the content/friends are on it, its not easy to
| change to another platform unless something drastic happens
| (like the Great Firewall).
| amelius wrote:
| The problem is that network effects determine what video
| service we use, mostly, as internet users. Saying that you
| could choose an alternative service is like the old argument
| that you could move to another country if you don't like it
| here [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| Is this an argument for a centralized govt provided video
| platform?
| josefx wrote:
| The average government would invest billions, privatize it
| immediately for millions and socialize the difference.
| wbsss4412 wrote:
| The thing is, it's not just about some general "video
| service", people want exactly what YouTube provides just
| without the specific things that they don't like. Finding a
| specific service that does that is nigh impossible.
|
| It is however totally possible to find or create and
| alternative video platform (this is something that plenty of
| YouTube creators already do). People just don't want to make
| the trade offs that solution requires.
| 6f4f06c00484d34 wrote:
| yes, they are allowed to do it. nobody is demanding the
| government to intervene and bring the dislikes back. I don't
| know which debates are you referring to.
|
| that being said, it is also their right to shut down whatever
| content Russia/China/Iran/etc finds disagreeable, I'm sure you
| don't mind that either.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Isn't that a strawman? You can call out companies for doing
| crappy things with their products without advocating government
| intervention.
|
| Is this a new thing? I see this argument all the time.
|
| When Coca Cola made their impopular recipe change were people
| defending it with "oh it is a private company, haters gonna
| hate".
| md2020 wrote:
| Seconded. This "private companies can do what they want"
| isn't the "gotcha" many people think it is. Societal values
| exist independent of the specific implementations of laws
| meant to protect them, and in places where the law doesn't
| reach--like the USA's 1st Amendment not applying to private
| businesses--I think it's still worth talking over "Hey, the
| law doesn't really enforce this value here, but maybe it's a
| good idea to abide by it anyway". Saying private companies
| can do whatever they want is just stating the obvious and
| avoiding the question of what they _should_ do.
| [deleted]
| butz wrote:
| Next update: removed comments.
| stiltzkin wrote:
| Big companies need comments for astroturfing, Google will keep
| them.
| notriddle wrote:
| I support such a move. YouTube comments have always been trash.
| gadrev wrote:
| Only sponsored comments!
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I really hope this backfires spectacularly on YouTube and the
| zealots who pushed for this change are held professionally
| accountable. I already click on fewer videos in search results
| and recommendations because I can no longer gauge how worthwhile
| they are to try and watch.
|
| The end result? I'm sticking to my current channels. I can't be
| alone and knowing that YouTube takes recommended content so
| seriously, I have to imagine this is going to panic plenty of
| product managers at YouTube.
| Metricon wrote:
| I've heard of a number of Youtube creators that are also
| placing their content on Odysee as a potential backup. I first
| heard of this site from Dave at EEVblog:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/c/EevblogDave/videos
|
| https://odysee.com/@eevblog:7
| jjcon wrote:
| Interesting - I first heard of odysee this week too from a VR
| channel I follow - it seems like a decent setup
| aronpye wrote:
| "Welcome to odyssey: we have dislikes", this made me smile
| officeplant wrote:
| Doesn't give me a lot of hope with Dave being in the top list
| on odysee surrounded by alt-right creators who escaped there
| from other platforms. Plus his recent shilling of the crypto
| currency connected to odysee on twitter.
|
| I get that creators want to be paid and need a better home
| than youtube, but none of this bodes well to me yet.
| rpowers wrote:
| From my experience the ones pushing for these ideas are the
| fresh grad PMs trying to do something big for "perf". The whole
| platform feels like Waymo, driverless.
| 1_player wrote:
| Youtube doesn't f*** care. Where are you going to go watch your
| favorite content creators? Oh, they only upload on our
| platform? Thought so.
|
| They can do whatever they want and they won't lose a single
| user.
|
| In fact, I wanted to cancel my Youtube Premium, but I know it's
| not gonna affect their decision in the slightest, while I will
| hurt my favourite content creators as they won't get that
| thousandth of a cent they get from my Premium view.
| sqrt17 wrote:
| Some of the more well-known YouTube creators are also on
|
| - Curiosity Stream/Nebula (Adam Neely, Mary Spender, Ali
| Abdaal, Thomas Frank, Super Bunnyhop)
|
| - LBRY/odysee (DistroTube)
|
| - FloatPlane (Linus Tech Tips)
|
| None of these has a nice recommender like YouTube, so you'll
| likely either have manual curation (Nebula, Floatplane) or
| drown in a sea of bad/uninteresting content (LBRY)
| SllX wrote:
| Your list also doesn't have a single YouTuber I actually
| watch. Well known or not, viewers have very fractured
| tastes.
| rfrey wrote:
| It may stop people exploring as much outside their current
| favourite creators. The issue is quickly judging the quality
| of unknown channels.
|
| So no, they probably won't lose "users", but they may lose
| "engagement," however they're measuring that at the minute.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > while I will hurt my favourite content creators as they
| won't get that thousandth of a cent they get from my Premium
| view.
|
| Over time this should put pressure on them to be open to a
| better platform and make the move as soon as such platform
| exists.
| 1_player wrote:
| No, I just explained that nobody will move out of the
| platform because everybody's there. Where are you going to
| watch your favourite USB gadget reviewer that only uploads
| on YT?
|
| Over time means nothing until there's actually competition,
| and there's nothing on the horizon that can compete to the
| scale of YouTube. Your content creator is not moving
| anywhere any time soon.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Competition can only appear if there's a selling point
| and demand for it. If creators get paid on YT, they have
| less incentive to seek out an alternative. If they stop
| getting paid (because people like you cancel their
| Premium subscription) they become potential customers for
| an upcoming alternative that does pay them.
| moritonal wrote:
| Bit hostile. I pay PS30 a year for RoosterTeeth, who are a
| company that put their content on YouTube (with ads) and
| their own site without.
|
| YouTube is becoming the place you find content, not
| necessarily though where you spend money. They're going to
| start caring about this.
| Hamcha wrote:
| Not related to the dislike feature in particular, but Youtube
| is definitely losing the next generation of creators. Plenty
| of people are using TikTok as their main platform nowadays,
| as it has bigger reach for their markets.
| 1_player wrote:
| TikTok is targeting a different type of content, there is
| no competition with YouTube as we know it, which is videos
| longer than 10 minutes.
| aaron695 wrote:
| > TikTok is targeting a different type of content, there
| is no competition with YouTube
|
| This is not a logical conclusion.
|
| Twitter is different to blogging (also shorter) it has
| killed a lot of the blogging market.
|
| In fact, a lot of Youtube is too long, as the content
| producers chase the ad revenue.
|
| Logically things will continue and everything will go to
| smaller chunks.
| 14 wrote:
| When the timing is right tic toc could pivot to longer
| videos.
| terafo wrote:
| Longer videos aren't suited to the tiktok formula(endless
| feed of videos and you where you never know what's next).
| It works for 30 second video, maybe for 3 minute video,
| not for two hour video and not even for twenty minute
| video.
| travisd wrote:
| YouTube now has "shorts" but it's definitely not the same
| since they aren't able to emulate the TikTok culture.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Same thing as Facebook/Instagram Reels, another attempt
| to blatantly clone a rival platform.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Like TikTok cloning Vine? :)
| Apocryphon wrote:
| I'd say there is more competition, but on much more
| specialized platforms with different purposes and smaller
| user bases- MOOC sites, other types of online learning
| sites, remote workout class platforms, Patreon, etc.
| There is a good amount of that video content which
| _could_ be hosted on YouTube, but would be less easily
| accessible or monetizeable if it was.
| JonathanMerklin wrote:
| Which is frankly still a wild concept to me because when
| I was of prime YouTube-binging age, the maximum length of
| a video _was_ 10 minutes.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >as it has bigger reach for their markets.
|
| TikTok has a horrible conversion rate though.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| Some are already hedging their bets. Linus Tech Tips, which
| is a pretty big channel to say the least, launched their
| own Floatplane service which they use to give exclusive
| access to paying subscribers. Like early viewing, live
| streaming and videos that don't even end up on YouTube.
| They offer it to other channels as well. As far as I'm
| aware, it has no discovery so far (you need to know a
| channel URL).
|
| I wish Peertube or something would take off. The kind of
| centralization YouTube has isn't healthy, and it's easier
| and cheaper to host video now than ever since HTML5 video
| became a thing. If you're running a business, depending on
| the goodwill of a third party company's free offering
| (which costs them a fortune to run) is nonsensical.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"I will hurt my favourite content creators as they won't get
| that thousandth of a cent they get from my Premium view."
|
| That's why I choose to reward them through non YouTube
| platforms like Patreon. I've also noticed a huge trend in
| content creators making sponsorship deals that they embed in
| their own videos. I sense that canceling your YouTube premium
| won't hurt them as much as it used to in the past. Plus, you
| can give a portion of your subscription to them directly,
| should you so choose.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Do you know of any recent reports or tweets of YT Premium
| CPM vs ad-supported? The only report I have is from 2016
| when YT Red was even smaller than what Premium is now:
| https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/totalbiscuit-youtube-
| red-p...
| NDizzle wrote:
| Where do I go to watch their videos? Rumble.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| >Where are you going to go watch your favorite content
| creators?
|
| Rumble and Rokfin, where more and more them are moving.
| History is littered with bankrupt companies who thought they
| were untouchable because people had nowhere else to go.
| inChargeOfIT wrote:
| I cancelled my premium, unsubscribed from all my channels,
| and have stopped browsing YouTube (which I did daily for
| years).
|
| Basically, I've stopped using YouTube as a source for finding
| new content. If I get linked to a video from a trusted source
| (here, reddit, etc), then I'll watch the video, but they lost
| me as a member of the community.
| nitrogen wrote:
| _Where are you going to go watch your favorite content
| creators?_
|
| A lot of them are cross-posting to Odysee, and some are also
| on Nebula.
| dylan604 wrote:
| 2 platforms I have never heard of before this post. It's
| like saying Mastadon is a replacement for _______. Yeah, no
| it/they are not replacing. Those sites are like the catch
| can for those willing to step away from THE place. Until
| those creators actually leave YT to 100% commit to other
| places by no longer posting to YT, then the masses are not
| leaving YT (or FB/Twit/etc).
|
| Edit: Do any of these content creators posting to other
| non-YT sites mention the availability of these sites in
| their YT videos? If not, then they are not really convinced
| of their staying power themselves.
| nitrogen wrote:
| _Do any of these content creators posting to other non-YT
| sites mention the availability of these sites in their YT
| videos?_
|
| Yes. EEVblog mentions Odysee all the time, and many many
| channels mention Nebula when shilling Curiosity Stream.
| They tend to tread lightly on YT itself because of the
| reverse of the prisoner's dilemma.
| webdoodle wrote:
| I'd like to see torrent hosting become a thing. I don't like
| to leave my computer\network connected to the internet all
| the time, but would like to make video/audio I've produced
| available. A hosting provider that lets me upload my content
| and host it as a torrent would solve many of the problems we
| currently face with private gatekeepers deciding what can and
| can't be hosted, displayed, voted on, commented on etc.
| saurik wrote:
| The generalization of the premise of Bittorrent to easy
| file hosting is IPFS, and there in fact are IPFS hosting
| providers (and decentralized protocols for such, including
| Filecoin).
| dylan604 wrote:
| When the best example of something is a coin, then I'm
| not really impressed as a file store/share platform.
| remexre wrote:
| Filecoin is only for paying others to host your content;
| you can host it yourself (as I do) or on a VPS and ignore
| Filecoin, and IPFS still works great.
| codezero wrote:
| Maybe not what you want/need, but I suspect you could
| accomplish this by just buying a seedbox, then seed your
| content into it so it's always online, then just make sure
| you use an open tracker. This isn't an area I've done much
| in so I may just not be thinking in the right direction :)
| etchalon wrote:
| The chance this change was pushed without data, and tests,
| seems antithetical to what we know about the change and how it
| was rolled out.
|
| They did this with an understanding of its impact on
| engagement.
| dathinab wrote:
| I stopped using YT recommendations a while ago, not I only go
| back to the same channels and if any new channel gets added
| it's not from a YT source.
|
| Stupid "I don't want to think" content got replaced by twitch,
| even through many twitch streams contain hardly any interesting
| "content" they are sadly stile miles better then most/close to
| all "dump" YT content (because "dump" YT content has gotten
| pretty bad).
|
| And high quality YT content often gets demonetized and seldomly
| recommended, because its either not advertisement friendly
| enough or doesn't cover a wide enough audience spectrum.
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| I'm really puzzled why anyone cares about this so passionately.
| I'm not a YouTube diehard but I use it pretty regularly to
| watch a handful of channels I like, maybe 2-3 hours per week
| watching videos on the site. Occasionally I'll search for how
| to video and click on whatever is in the top few results on
| Google. I've seen several posts now across different sites
| lamenting this change, but I've yet to see anything remotely
| persuasive that this is a bad thing. Sometimes I think it's
| just people being grumpy about any change at all, the way some
| people will grumble about a logo change despite it having no
| real consequence of how things work.
|
| In my personal experience, I rarely even noticed the dislike
| count. Sometimes I'd wonder who the few unfortunate people were
| who disliked a video with about 1000x as many likes. It
| reminded me of the 1 star reviews you see on Amazon complaining
| about the postman for a product that otherwise has a stellar
| record. I just assume something is wrong with those peoples
| computers which made their video glitch out or something. I
| don't really trust negative feedback that much when it is
| paired with an overwhelming amount of positive feedback for the
| same thing. And I don't think I ever encountered a video with
| anywhere near the number of dislikes as likes, let alone more
| dislikes. I personally have never disliked a video. If I'm
| watching something new, I'll just watch part of the video
| myself, and decide if I want to watch the rest or click away to
| something else.
|
| When I heard the announcement of removing the count as an
| effort to combat brigading, it made a lot of sense to me. I've
| seen the growth of negativity across the internet in the last
| few years. People are actually addicted to outrage these days,
| so anything that can help eliminate that seems like a good idea
| to me. The fact they kept the button there and still show the
| count to the uploader seems like they've at least tried to
| appease the diehards who appreciate having that dislike button
| - pretty fair if you ask me.
|
| You may challenge the assumption that only diehards care about
| this, but I've just looked at a few videos in my feed to see
| the number of likes and it's abysmal. 40k likes for a video
| with 4M views. 18k likes for a video with 800k views. They're
| all like that. The like/dislike metric just doesn't have much
| engagement. While you predict dire consequences for YouTubes
| future and panic among their employees, I am thinking that
| casual users probably have not even noticed at all.
| charcircuit wrote:
| As a heavy YouTube user the removal of the dislike count didn't
| effect me at all since the number was always useless to me.
|
| >because I can no longer gauge how worthwhile they are to try
| and watch.
|
| That is YouTube's job. Their recommendation algorithm will try
| and suggest videos that are worthwhile for you to watch. The
| order that videos are recommend is how know which videos are
| likely more worthwhile for you to watch. After clicking on a
| video most people judge the video be just watching the first
| few seconds an opposed to looking at the likes. They will
| switch to a different video if they didn't find that one
| interesting. Another common behaviour is just skimming through
| a video.
| tenpoundhammer wrote:
| There is a youtube alternative that some creators are using
| called odysee. https://odysee.com/ . It still has the dislike
| button.
| Drew_ wrote:
| This site also has 100% CPU usage on idle for some reason.
| prox wrote:
| Mining coin?
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I don't think so, my cpu is fine, doesn't use any more than
| youtube uses. I think the poster must have something wrong
| with their browser. I've seen more than a couple of people
| who got kicked off youtube move to odysee as they are much
| less aggressive on removing content. They also have
| downvoting.
| dylan604 wrote:
| gotta earn money some how. if you can't make it with ads, put
| your viewers to work in other ways. just a guess
| jcun4128 wrote:
| What gets me is the silent deletion. I generally don't post swear
| words but recently I posted "ass" and I refreshed it was gone.
| This could be on a personal user setting but still. It's funny
| though you could comment/not look at something again so does it
| matter that your comment stayed... idk.
|
| It doesn't tell you "that's not allowed" or something. It updates
| the UI so you think it went through but it actually didn't.
| foxfluff wrote:
| That happens even if you don't post anything rude.
| nitrogen wrote:
| Youtube has an option for channels to hold "potentially
| offensive" comments for review. If that's what you encountered,
| the channel can then decide whether to show or delete your
| comment.
| rhegart wrote:
| https://returnyoutubedislike.com/
|
| So frustrating not having the dislike button
| hirundo wrote:
| Hacker News has a similar problem with comments:
| net_votes = up_votes - down_votes
|
| You need at least two of the above variables to get an idea of
| both the direction and magnitude of the voting. Hacker News
| provides only one: net_votes. YouTube used to provide up_votes
| and down_votes, effectively providing all three. Now YouTube has
| _reduced_ its information to up_votes, so they 're now down to
| one variable in the equation, as Hacker News has been all along.
|
| The difference between 102+/100- votes and 2+/0- votes is large,
| but invisible on this site. I think it would be better for HN to
| go to where YouTube was, giving us an idea of both the net vote
| and the level of activity. Like up/down or up/total or net/total.
| jjcon wrote:
| I think that net votes is still far far better than just up
| votes. With net votes at least spam or misleading can at times
| be somewhat detectable.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Moderation here is quite opionated, isn't it? I would guess
| that it's a very conscious choice to not show votes or
| downvotes, since it makes commenter interaction even more
| contentious. I like it the way it is.
| gthtjtkt wrote:
| HN is the most heavily moderated, manipulated and astro-
| turned forum I've even seen, but you don't realize that until
| the mods start suppressing your posts and comments. Titles
| are constantly edited for no apparent reason, users who post
| unpopular facts are permanently penalized, and you can watch
| as negative stories about large tech companies are quickly
| flagged off the front page.
|
| There's literally zero transparency here. At least on Reddit
| you can track the censorship in real time.
| r00fus wrote:
| It's very interesting to ask what's gained by seeing downvotes
| in addition to upvotes, and whether that differs based on
| whether the content is video or commentary.
|
| HN comments can still be downvoted (if you have enough karma)
| so arguably you can still get signal quality from the sum of
| votes.
|
| Especially since in most cases, you can simply comment instead
| of downvote.
| skissane wrote:
| > HN comments can still be downvoted (if you have enough
| karma) so arguably you can still get signal quality from the
| sum of votes.
|
| Downvotes on HN comments aren't a pure quality signal. HN's
| culture is that downvoting something just because you
| disagree with it is perfectly cromulent behaviour, as
| established by PG himself:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658691
|
| Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of that decision, but I didn't
| start this site.
| polote wrote:
| Because on HN there are only two possible states for comments.
| Flagged or visible. The upvotes and downvotes just help compute
| the order.
|
| This is better for freedom of expression and showing the split
| would be a bad idea imo. Comments who are more upvoted are also
| more downvoted because they are more visible (as they rank
| first)
| emerged wrote:
| It doesn't provide either except on your own posts, right? Or
| is that some super karma unlock feature.
| kazinator wrote:
| Hacker news has a minimum karma requirement for downvoting; you
| can't just create an account (or a dozen accounts) and start
| downvoting something you don't like, or to harass someone with
| serial downvotes. You must first attract a certain number of
| upvotes for your comments and submissions.
|
| That fixes many of the abuse problems with downvotes.
|
| HN situations are also monitored by the site operators
| themselves, who intervene. YT is too vastly big for that.
| simonsarris wrote:
| Looking at a lot of timber framing technique videos this week and
| realized how badly I miss the dislike as a signal that the video-
| taker is doing something wrong or dangerous.
| spiderice wrote:
| Same. The like count is completely useless without the dislike
| count. They may as well have just gotten rid of both.
| 14 wrote:
| Has anyone built a browser plug in that we can down vote or up
| vote videos? Outside of Youtube?
| paulpauper wrote:
| Dislikes still visible on incognito tab. Most fiction/speculative
| authors assumed tyranny would be from governments, not private
| companies. How wrong they were.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > Most fiction/speculative authors assumed tyranny would be
| from governments, not private companies.
|
| I was under the impression cyberpunk got that right, generally.
| Eelongate wrote:
| Yep. Weak, incompetent or absent governments, with
| corporations governing most affairs in practice.
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| "tyranny" Okay, I'm definitely not on YouTube/Google's side
| here, but calling this tyranny is legit hilarious
| krapp wrote:
| "first they came for the dislike buttons..."
| gxs wrote:
| Looking at this as a single instance of censorship as tyranny
| might provoke ridicule, but I see where OP is coming from.
|
| Taken in aggregate, in a world with multi-trillion dollar
| corporations censor their users, it's not ridiculous to talk
| about this as tyranny. There is no one tyrant, but every
| corporation rules like one and taken as a whole, the "world's
| government" (in this case the set of the most powerful
| corporations) is tyranny.
|
| Anyway, I'm neither here nor there on the argument, but I
| don't see what's so laughable about OPs offhand comment.
| etchalon wrote:
| I look forward to your treatise on how Taco Bell's removal
| of the Grilled Stuff Nacho was tyrannical overreach by an
| unaccountable food monopolist.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Dislikes are visible since it's an A/B test where they
| gradually put more and more people into group B until it's
| 100%. Only then will they stop sending the dislike count via
| the API.
| jcun4128 wrote:
| I did notice this "recently" like there was a recent change
| before dislikes of making their icons thinner. I would notice
| it in one account but not another.
| etchalon wrote:
| You just equated the removal of a software feature, by a
| private company, on a free platform, as "tyranny".
|
| You are not a serious person.
| 6f4f06c00484d34 wrote:
| always glad to spot a fellow ancap in the wild. private
| companies should be able to do whatever the fuck they want.
| throwawayfear wrote:
| It's governments resorting to tyranny. By expecting a violation
| of bodily autonomy as a prerequisite for putting bread on the
| table and participating in society. Germany's government for
| example is now locking down covid-unvaccinated people and
| presuming to tell everyone who you can even have in your own
| home.
|
| "Under rules announced Thursday, gatherings are limited to "one
| household" plus two other people, if those among them include
| people who are unvaccinated or who have not recently recovered
| from covid-19"
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/03/germany-vacc...
|
| And this isn't yet as bad as in Australia, where you have armed
| and masked police officers arresting and harrassing people just
| for leaving their home to go outside. It is now a "paper's
| please" penal colony once again. You can find videos of these
| types of interactions online.
|
| Australia has been going to shit for over a year now. Here are
| a few examples of how:
|
| They're going to force people who quarantine at home (rather
| than a government-mandated quarantine "hotel" with guards) to
| install and use an app. Facial recognition, GPS tracking in
| your own home. And it will randomly ping you, and if you don't
| respond within 15 minutes it'll send the police to your house
| to conduct an in-person quarantine check. Source:
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-a...
|
| They can arbitrarily lock you in your apartment building for up
| to weeks, no one allowed to leave. Sources:
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-53316097
|
| https://fortune.com/2020/11/19/south-australia-adelaide-lock...
|
| And there's more examples if you look online.
|
| So while private companies do have issues at times, they lack
| the power and reach of governments to enact these types of
| violations against freedom. This is hiding a dislike counter.
| It's a stupid product design decision that will cost them money
| as people seek alternative platforms, but it's not comparable
| to tyranny. We are seeing actual tyranny unfolding in
| Australia, Austria, and Germany. These democracies are
| collapsing because of the bureacrats there. Not the companies.
| It's time to start recognizing who the real enemies to personal
| freedom and health are.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Sounds like his account has been put into some sort of shadowban
| mode, which is needed for the {human|bot} spammers out there (not
| that I know why it would be applied to them).
| kristofferR wrote:
| Shadowbanning is pretty useless for spammers, the pain they
| receive by getting one of their hundred bot accounts made
| invisible is nothing compared to the pain the real person gets.
|
| Shaddowbanning should be like the justice system, it is better
| to let a a hundred guilty go unpunished than to convict one
| innocent person.
| Nihilartikel wrote:
| There's a chance that the individual was acting bot like..
| perhaps they posted the same comment, verbatim, to multiple
| videos in a short time span.
| rvnx wrote:
| That's what he says, he goes to some small channels, and keep
| saying "Great content!" or "Great video!"
| dylan604 wrote:
| Then it doesn't really sound like the world is missing much
| by not having that comment. Make a comment on HN like
| "Great thread!" and it'll drop like a stone. It's a useless
| comment. "Great thread/video! I really like ______" would
| at least tell someone why you think it is great and much
| more useful.
| im3w1l wrote:
| Bots and other un-persons.
| dntrkv wrote:
| As is the case 99% of the time someone makes stupid claims like
| this. You would think of all people, the users on HN would know
| this, but apparently not.
| barbazoo wrote:
| The real travesty here is him using the context menu to refresh
| the page.
| kazinator wrote:
| The submission topic is misleading.
|
| The issue is that someone is complaining that Youtube is auto-
| deleting their comments.
|
| Unless you know someone inside Youtube who has the technical
| knowledge and access to dig into this there is no way to know
| exactly what happened to your account: how your account's auto-
| deletion state got triggered.
|
| It could be due to some completely different reason not related
| to the content of their posts being remarks against the Youtube
| change with regard to downvotes.
|
| Maybe the comments were simply too repetitive in their content,
| and triggered a mechanism against repetitive posts (being
| predicated on the hypothesis that repetitiveness is an earmark of
| spam).
|
| Or maybe the comments used offensive language; could be that YT
| has some mechanism to put serial posters of comments that use
| certain words on ice for a while.
|
| If you look into the Youtube support forum, a large number of
| people have or have had this problem.
|
| It may resolve itself if that person just stops commenting for
| about a week.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Is this youtube staff purposefully deleting critical comments?
|
| Or is it anti-spam algorithms getting triggered by people
| flooding the comments sections of videos with the same inane
| comments? And/or getting flagged by creators and other youtube
| users?
|
| Frankly, I can't see most creators wanting their youtube video
| comments full of "BRING BACK THE DISLIKE BUTTON", and I could see
| lots of their fans being annoyed by such comments as well.
|
| My guess is that 95%+ of youtube users are more annoyed by an
| extremely vocal minority disrupting things than they are the
| removal of the dislike button.
| jafitc wrote:
| Oh the dislike button is still there. It just does nothing
| anymore. Isn't that what we all supposed to be? Dumb and
| beautiful.
|
| What do you think about our product? interested? very
| interested? or very interested? which one? which one? which
| one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZJQDpS7ikc
|
| With the dislike count gone you cannot make a quick judgement
| about what Youtube recommended to you. Less power to the
| people, more power to Youtube.
|
| It's a very subtle change. Also a monumental one.
| TT-392 wrote:
| I think it is automatic, a similar thing happens to me every so
| often. I am don't think it is related to the content of the
| comment, I barely even use youtube in the browser anymore and I
| barely ever leave a comment. I don't think I have left any
| comments that could be seen as offensive. The only thing that I
| could think of is that my ip is setting off some kind of spam
| protection because I watch so much youtube, just through
| youtube-dl + mpv. Idk what it is exactly, but I can confirm
| that something like what is shown in the vid happens to people,
| and that it is really frustrating.
| lkjlwnfas wrote:
| No one in my family (young and old) uses YouTube or Instagram
| anymore. It's all about TikTok.
| topynate wrote:
| Just in case someone in a position to do something about it is
| reading this, there's a graceful way out for Youtube. Leave
| dislike counts publicly available via the API. That way people
| who use the ratio to evaluate videos (very useful for reviews)
| can install a browser extension, but dislike mobbing will be
| minimized, seeing as most casual users will not bother installing
| such extensions.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| They don't need a "way out." Just put it back the way it was.
|
| It's like finding a street full of protesters and trying to
| figure out the best way to make sure nobody sees them. The
| problem isn't your method, it's your goal.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| I mean really, if you want a downvote button, I'm sure there is
| or will be a browser plugin that you can install that will put
| the downvotes back in there. Then you know YT isn't messing
| with the counts as an added bonus (of course, you have to trust
| that the plugin maintainer isn't...)
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Honestly I think the best solution should have been to let
| creators enable/disable dislike visibility on each of their
| *own* videos. Removing that for every single video on the
| platform is a supernova level of overkill.
| wolpoli wrote:
| The Google Chrome team uses a similar strategy to deal with
| backlashes: They leave a feature they want to removed behind a
| feature flag to keep the outspoken users happy. A few releases
| later, they remove the flag, when the casual users have moved
| on and there aren't enough outspoken users to cause any kind of
| mobbing.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| This would be useless from facebook's perspective since the
| brigaders would just make a browser extension to monitor
| up/down votes anyway.
| jsight wrote:
| The downside is that you'd end up with facebook memes showing
| all of the dislikes that "YouTube doesn't want you to see".
| hojjat12000 wrote:
| The same thing is happening to me right now. Maybe something is
| wrong in Youtube! My comments are about Youtube and it's under a
| video that the person is angry that their views are going down
| (JayzTwoCents). But I can see it being deleted! I have seen
| multiple content creators also mentioning something like "if you
| leave a comment and it gets deleted it's not me, youtube is doing
| it and I don't know why" in the past week.
| AtNightWeCode wrote:
| This path is kinda the obvious path to go down if you have a
| large public site 2021. It is what the data says. Even for small
| sites with 1M users this is obvious. HN would benefit a lot from
| going down the same path too to avoid premiering all the zealots.
|
| Edit: Landed well as expected. Maybe HN could provide a service
| where users could battle about facts in different areas. So all
| the useless fatty Americans could show their true credentials.
| teawrecks wrote:
| What do people want? On the one hand you have misinformation and
| psychological harm that social media causes people and all the
| people complaining about that, and on the other hand you have
| heavily curated/censored content to try and craft a specific
| experience on a platform, and all the people complaining about
| that. So what actually do people want social media companies to
| do? Hands off or hands on? You can't have both.
| polote wrote:
| My bet is that people will start posting a comment saying "upvote
| this comment if you want to downvote", the comment will rank
| first and it will be as if you have a public dislike count
| cellularmitosis wrote:
| The tiktok community has adopted a similar strategy for voting
| on conversations in the comments. Someone will post a spicy
| comment, which gets a certain number of likes, then someone
| will reply with the comment "L" (as in "take the L, you lose"),
| which gets a certain number of likes.
| mikewarot wrote:
| This is evidence that YouTube breaks the user's trust.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-03 23:01 UTC)