|
| Thread: youtube removing dislike button |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · NEXT» |
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 12, 2021 12:23 PM |
|
|
youtube removing dislike button
youtube is removing the dislike button on their website. first, they started removing/blocking comments on videos, then resetting the dislike counter, then removing dissenting videos and channels themselves, and now they are silencing dissent on the propaganda videos pushed by their owners.
youtube is following the same censorship habits of the other main social media sites and many much less popular websites. they are attempting to control and frame everything IN ONLY THEIR POV, everything you see, hear, observe, and can interact with online. they are directly controlling the information one can access on their website; as dissenting opinion is a good way to prove to people that what they're saying, doesn't reflect what the public thinks.
|
|
Gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 12:35 PM |
|
|
They are removing the bar that shows ratios of likes to dislikes, and the number from the dislike button, but the button itself is there. Which... makes them cowards. And also likely comes from repeated overwhelmingly negative backlash to their Rewind videos (because of how god-awful they became) and to multiple videos released by massive corporations, especially in the video game industry.
... Which means Youtube, a corporate subsidy of a massive near-monopoly corporation, is doing the standard thing for corporations seeing backlash and removing tools to express dissatisfaction. So that they can make their product look more stable and attractive to other corporations by pretending the bad thing doesn't exist. Yay, Shadowrun dystopian corporate hellscape world logic.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 12:46 PM |
|
|
They are removing nothing except the PUBLIC visibility of the counter of the dislike clicks (the owner of the vid still sees the number).
Since the like/dislike crap is one of the most obnoxious things in online culture this is a step into the right direction.
Keep in mind: You can still leave a comment if you don't like what you see (except when comments have been disabled anyway).
I mean, seriously - what does the number of dislikes (or one-star-ratings) actually tell you? That's right, nothing. Because people dislike and vote down stuff for the silliest reasons.
|
|
Gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 01:16 PM |
|
|
Edit: JJ you edited in that comments can be disabled while I was posting. How dare you?
You can leave a comment, true... except, keep in mind, The Creator can disable comments. So that often leaves only the dislike button as a way to engage with a wildly unpopular piece of media, and this change removes that public voice. Creators can still see the ratio, sure, but they are not in any way pressured to share that ratio, allowing corporate ghouls to smile, nod and tell their shareholders that a product or advertisement went well received even if it's a bold-faced lie.
Is the internet a place where gang-up mob mentality can lead to terrible, stupid things, like hate-bombing a product for purely PR reasons? Sure. Does that make this a good shift? No. For two major reasons:
1) This doesn't fix that culture problem, just makes it less apparent and pushes it to the side, where it will fester even more.
2) It's purely a PR move meant to squelch one of the few remaining avenues of dissent that exist on the largest entertainment platform in the world, so that out of touch business people can pretend even more that the dissatisfied don't exist.
So... sure JJ, but also no. This move is just bad.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 01:40 PM |
|
|
Nah.
You just need to grow up and simply learn to AVOID opinion vids with disabled comment section (on principle), if it's important for you to express your dislike when you feel it.
I also didn't edit anything in.
|
|
The_Green_Drag
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 02:00 PM |
|
|
This reminds me of when the Netflix’s rating changed because of one unfunny comedian blaming her low score for anything other than unfunniness.
The double standard of American society continues strong!
|
|
Gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 02:02 PM |
|
|
Hmmm... could have sworn I saw something edited. Though I am a bit sick, so I may have been looking at my own edit when I needed to fix an [ /i] error. Alas.
And oh yes, sure, just ignore the problem, drive away community engagement, I'm sure that will fix it. Activision/ Blizzard employees sure would appreciate that, what with only popular opinion and negative backlash on anti-community measures making the corporation actually give a damn about the abuses that they covered up for decades. Yes, ghouls with all of the power need another way to silence all those pesky good-for-nothing complaining and downvoting fans hurting their bottom line for... entirely justifiable reasons. Because god forbid, people in positions of power suffer... any negative response on their community engagement from doing shady to downright illegal things, and the confidence of their shareholders be shaken at all.
Brilliant.
So yeah this is a bad move meant to smother engagement and smooth over justified controversy, and it's bad. It's cynical, pretty obvious, and bad. Like, I can only say it's bad, because it's bad. Corporate ghouls saying, "Oh no, we got bad responses to our blatantly soulless and cartoonishly evil plots, better make sure NO ONE CAN VISIBLY RESPOND unless it's positive~!" bad. It's not government censorship, but it is a soft form of corporate censorship, and it's pretty clearly bad.
It's bad.
B A D.
I'ma get another box of tissues.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 02:12 PM |
|
|
Aha something new. YouTube tests now. I'm disagree with like thing, because some slipped presses the button, etc and now suchlike some doesn't feel or know how to press the suck.
I remember mid YouTube just in about 10 years ago. One Swedish tv-movie showed two little girls were showing off their nude, and their large pudendal clefts were revealing. But no one said paedophilic, like or suck, etc A little viewer, maybe caused boring tv-movie told Swedish life. No violent, action, comedy, etc nothing! Only film actors were speaking between naked girls played in their bedroom.
Ok? Today has a very different, when people spread a rumour about naked. And you get a know about magazine, etc So YouTube will develop at better line/way. They forgot that intention can't work due to boom.
Boom! Irony that their research is without proof.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 02:14 PM |
|
|
having a dislike button that doesn't show the number of dislikes, while keeping a like button that shows the number of likes, renders the dislike button useless to the general public. it doesn't matter not one goddamn little bit if the button itself exists, but doesn't display the results of using it for all to see. my point absolutely stands. they might as well have deleted it. now, they can get the temperature of the audience, while denying that very audience that input.
and of course, pro-globalists will defend censorship that favors their narrative. does anyone need more proof these people are irl villains? because i and millions of other free-thinking people don't. every single thing they do SCREAMS "corrupt".
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 02:21 PM |
|
|
The mob foams because they are denied the instrument of their simple-click-and-diss rulership.
Take your darn time and write a sensible freaking COMMENT, for frags sake!
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 02:27 PM |
|
|
|
negative comments already get deleted by the thousands, genius.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 03:53 PM |
|
|
Whats next? Theyll be deleting the fred button from hc.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 03:57 PM |
|
|
Celfious said:
Whats next? Theyll be deleting the fred button from hc.
Dang, we've been figured out. 
____________
|
|
Gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 04:06 PM |
|
|
JJ. Buddy. Pal. You're forcing me to agree with Fred here because of your absolutely abysmal hot take. At the risk of sounding like it's a tirade, let's actually... sit down and think this through. Four specific criteria: 1) Who does this benefit? And who does it benefit the most? 2) Who does Youtube historically prioritize? 3) Who has the motivation to push for this change? 4) Who has the influence to see it implemented?
So let's get this started, shall we?
_____________________________________________________________________
1) Who does this benefit? As in, who does this actually benefit the most?
Small creators? Well according to a study that I could believe Youtube put out, it prevents people from hate-bombing small channels into oblivion. Okay. Cool. Small channels won't up and vanish because of the haters, which is neat... though haters tend to congregate more around the medium-sized creators, who are closer to having actual presence on social media. And the medium-sized creators have a shot of weathering the storm and making it big regardless, while large creators (such as Pewdiepie) are pretty much immune. But I digress. So if it's to help the smaller creators, then it's exclusively for those creators, since their algorithm for the study blatantly showed them that large creators... basically see no impact, right?
Well, no, it's being given to large creators too. Who benefit from not having the button visible because it prevents negative feedback from being seen at a glance. When this comes to corporate shareholders, major donators, advertisers and corporations, this means that the shareholders that fund and effectively own those companies are not exposed to the negative PR on a given video (since comments are always disabled on such videos), and they typically only glance at the companies they are invested in, if they take note of them at all. The ratio of the dislike bar was flat-out the only thing a lot of the people in charge of the biggest corporations cared about. This move is going to increase the profits of corporations that have been acting effectively consequence-free since the Bush jr. era, right as they are finally suffering backlash against their frankly horrible, often illegal actions.
Is this the only way to criticize these corporations? Well, no. But shareholders will not care unless the problem is large enough to hit international news. Again, most shareholders do not monitor the corporations they contribute to outside of cursory glances (at, say, a like/ dislike button that shows obvious negative backlash), as long as the money they invested keeps going up. And if the shareholders don't care then corporations can effectively flat-out ignore criticisms and controversies with no financial impact. And repeat after me, corporations only care about money. They don't care about laws or morality. There are literally slave plantations in Florida where people are bought and sold via contracts, chained to posts to make sure they don't escape, and kept under armed guard because corporations only care about money.
So I'm giving this category to the large contributors, specifically if they are large corporations. As dumb and reductive as it seems, that like/dislike ratio was one of the only ways to meaningfully impacting their bottom line without their founding CEO sexually abusing and eating babies showing up in national news.
_____________________________________________________________________
2) What are the actions that Youtube is currently taking that can demonstrate who they prioritize? Well, let's check out that algorithm thing. The Youtube algorithm was changed over a decade ago to specifically tailor the Youtube home page and video recommendations to something that would "create engagement."
While some nobs shift and turn with the algorithm, some of the variables this algorithm has consistently been based on has consistently remained: (from least impact to highest)
-A) Video length, based on the length of videos you tend to watch (long-form essay video pursuers tend to get longer mid-to-long length recommendations, vine compilation enjoyers tend to get short-to-mid length videos, etc. And Youtube tends to favor videos in the 10-15 minute mark in particular)
-B) Like-to-dislike ratio. (Yea. It's all the way down here.)
-C) Similarity to content you already watch. (Watch a lot of politics? Actually that one is kinda held under a latch. If you have age limits on your browser, at all, political content is typically locked behind a restricted mode in the algorithm. But you play video games? WE GOT YOU SON. Even broken down by playthrough vs advertisement, and by genre if you favor a genre!)
-D) How "Advertiser friendly" a channel's content is. (Mentioned above, political content is much less recommended, and it's because advertisers are less likely to want to attach their name to a channel that covers controversial topics. Corporations only care about money.)
-E) Creators you already watched more than one video of will get the top slots of the recommended bar.
-F) Frequency the creator uploads. Unless you ding that bell, you won't get recommends or notifications if a youtuber you watch stops uploading for two weeks. Unless the channel is large enough to check the next box...
-G) Channel size. The larger the channel size, the more they will dominate the front page, especially if any of the lower-ranking valves are relevant to the larger channel.
-H) Channels you do not have blocked, which is a feature that JUST got reimplemented a few months ago. (For about 8 months or so, you couldn't tell Youtube to stop sending you movie channels if you watch a cover of songs from Hunchback of Notre Dame, for example. Which created a LOT of negative backlash, since people couldn't find their favorite channels, and it impacted Youtube's bottom line. Hence the reversal. Corporations only care about money.)
Youtube doesn't have any transparency with their algorithm, but these are the major factors that relate to which channels they recommend, which can be determined through trial and error and a lot of experimentation that people who make it their job to know these things (often so they can know how to game the system for profit) managed to determine.
So. Using this criteria, Youtube will tend to favor recommending larger channels first and foremost (since those bring in much more ad revenue), and smaller channels far, far less (since their ad revenue is pretty close to non-existent.) Even more, small channels will tend to be rather specific, focusing on certain video game playthroughs, product reviews, etc, making them relatively niche, while larger channels (such as official music, movie, game dev and news channels) tend to have much broader appeal.
While there are large content creators that are individual production teams unaffiliated with major companies and groups, the large businesses and corporations still tend to have channels that are massive in comparison to the average individual user. So their videos already are less likely to be recommended, especially when the algorithm is shifted subtly to favor businesses, and license holders and advertising firms are favored. (This is a recorded phenomena, and has happened two or three times since youtube switched to the algorithm method, often resulting in major individual creators asking why their videos have disappeared from people's feeds and the front page, and often gets corrected within three or so days of the incident being brought up.)
Large creators, especially companies, will often get the lion's share of recommends on the front page unless you, the user, go out of your way to mess with the algorithm. Youtube simply prioritizes them more because they are worth more to them. Channels that are companies also tend to be the biggest advertisers on the platform, and they get views and directly contribute to Youtube's profit as a corporation simply based on that alone. Smaller channels, by contrast, are de-prioritized, as they bring in fewer profits. And remember kids, Youtube is a corporation, and corporations only care about money.
_____________________________________________________________________
3) Who has the motivation to push to want this? Well, honestly, both small and large creators. Small because there is less chance they will be crushed into nothing by haters on the internet, and large because their investors only see positive feedback on their content.
Smaller creators have been asking for something to stop random hate bombing for years, ever since the introduction of Youtube as a platform, really. They've been ignored for a long time. Large individual creators also sometimes push for this, some of them because they remember being the little guys, others because they were directly impacted (often over recent controversies, legitimate or not) by hate-bombing. This is typically a genuine, even if self serving, call to try and clean up internet toxicity.
Larger corporate creators have put a large push into "cleaning up toxicity" recently, and it coincides with negative pushback on their more recent products and releases (or the products and releases of peers in the industry,) often in response to controversies and scandals that came to light. It's almost always a member of PR or HR that delivers the message, it's almost always scripted, it's pretty obviously an attempt to reduce the outrage from them doing something outrageous. It gets listened to by Youtube.
_____________________________________________________________________
4) This brings me to my final point: Who historically has the influence to manage this?
Small creators do not. They've been asking for help for over two decades, and while Youtube releases statements and "reforms" to ostensibly "help" them, those reforms (such as the implementation of the algorithm in the first place) tend to push them to the side and ultimately harm them instead.
The large, corporate channels are their advertisers. They are literally the entire source of Youtube's revenue. When they want something, they almost always get it. (See: youtube's copywrite policy (not as bad as twitch's... but that's after over a decade of legal battles, and in direct violation of US fair use and parody laws), Youtube's algorithm, ad revenue shares, etc, etc)
The corporations have the influence. Not the small creators. Youtube does not care about small creators, though if they can give this a happy spin and flimsy justification by saying it will help them the corporation is absolutely going to do so because that's an easy PR win. Corporations only care about money.
_____________________________________________________________________
In conclusion, this is a decision that's good for corporations being dressed up as good for small channels via PR speak, and while it might be correct that this will help the smaller creators, the only reason it's being implemented platform-wide is because it will help Youtube's advertisers by covering up controversies more, in one of the only ways those companies' shareholders use to actually interact with and measure non-financial success.
_____________________________________________________________________
TL;DR: Yes. How this is being implemented is bad. If it only applied to creators with, say, 200,000 or fewer followers (the ones that are statistically impacted by hate-bombing meaningfully on the platform) then this would be a sparkling, beautiful thing. Something to applaud Youtube for, because it was specific action taken to protect smaller creators from mob mentality. But that's not why it was implemented. It's being implemented because major advertisers and corporations are sick of explaining to shareholders why their videos are getting downvoted into oblivion, who likely made behind-the-curtain threats to reduce advertising revenue to Youtube to make it go away. The intent does not match the statement.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 04:45 PM |
|
|
Something is seriously wrong with your counting ability. 
Maybe this would be simpler if you just linked to something on youtube that you
a) absolutely need to watch and
b) need to diss and
c) will have disastrous results if dissing isn't possible anymore.
|
|
Gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 05:07 PM |
|
|
Wow. It's almost like I'm sick, told you I'm sick, and decided to shorten my post, and forgot to edit the five because I'm sick. But sure. We'll just let the low-blow ad-homonym slide.
Because my point was not that we need to be able to diss on people on youtube, my point was that one of the only things outside of national/ international controversies that major shareholders in corporations care about is that like to dislike ratio. Shareholder opinion is the only thing that corporations care about, so removing one of the only vectors that they use to monitor public opinion of their investments directly impacts corporate (especially CEO) accountability. And it does so by hiding (not removing) one of the lowest-weighted conditions for recommending a video. But hey, haha, Gnomes is sick and said five points when he only gave four, point and laugh and ignore what he said 'cause he's dumb.
I pointed the actual problem I have out. Repeatedly. In my first point. Thanks for being disingenuous and proving you didn't read that beyond skimming.
Goodnight, JJ.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 05:24 PM |
|
|
So you can't link to a vid.
Instead you seriously imply that corporations care, when people ON PRINCIPLE diss their vids because they dislike the corp, their policy, capitalism in general and have nothing better to do than click on a thumbs-down.
Different thing with reasoned criticism.
Oh, and your post? 
You mean, THAT is great?
Now tell me you care a lot that JJ dissed you.
Really, Gnomes.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 08:15 PM |
|
|
this has nothing whatsoever to do with creators. you want the answer to WHY they did this? look at what was downvoted the most, and then add to that who owns youtube, and it's largest monetary contributors.
there, you'll find your answer.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 08:28 PM |
|
|
You don't want the answer to that question.
You want the answer to the question why people klick on a thumbs-down symbol. At youtube.
I mean, when *I* watch something there and I don't like what I see ... I just leave. Why would I watch the whole thing and then dislike the thing? Waste of time, isn't it?
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted November 12, 2021 09:29 PM |
|
|
|
Try Top 10 Most DISLIKED YouTube Videos, etc
|
| |
|
|
