Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

Youtube cancels public dislike count on videos.

  • 10-11-2021 10:36pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,748 ✭✭✭✭ briany
    Registered User


    Load of c**p. But also, there's talk going around that this is a decision being taken to appease large corporations and political entities from getting unwelcome negative feedback rather than protecting your average Youtuber. As people have been saying, it's a good way to sort the wheat from the chaff when looking for pertinent videos, although some discretion does have to be used as videos can sometimes be subject to unjust downvote brigading by trolls. Will Youtube roll back this decision? I suppose we can only wait and find out, but there's little real alternative to the platform. Many video sites of course, but none with anywhere near the same breadth of content.



«13

Comments

  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Jovanni Odd Motorcycle
    Registered User


    I've never checked or noticed the likes or dislikes on a video unless it's the only reason someone has sent it to me. The algorithm will be affected but considering the amount of shite it suggests to me I don't think the like/dislike ratio is the issue.



  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ Juliet Kind Barium
    Registered User




  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The ads thing happened I think a few months back, a youtuber I follow mentioned that ads were put into everybody's past videos retroactively. Even if the channel had previously opted out of ads, there they were again.



  • Registered Users Posts: 468 ✭✭ Shao Kahn


    No need for premium, just use youtube with no account.

    No adds, and the algorithm struggles to track you.

    The whole recommendation thing is a big scam with youtube anyway. Their whole business model, is based on a captive audience strategy. Zombie users watching whatever they make you watch!

    "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives, and it puts itself into our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." (John Wayne)



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,233 ✭✭✭ Flinty997
    Registered User


    They want to push the stuff that makes money. Regardless of what it is. It's algorithms push everything I hate into my feed. Tries to hide the stuff I'm interested in.

    This is all more of the same.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭ Markus Antonius
    Registered User


    Newstalk will be delighted.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,351 ✭✭✭✭ Potential-Monke
    Registered User


    I no longer give a flying hoot about YouTube. 14 ads it tried to show me before a video the other night. I refuse to watch them, so it tried to show me another ad 13 more times before it left the video play. Likes, dislikes, upvoting, to hell with it all if you can't even watch the fecking video (this only applies on the PS5, I have AdBlock).

    But, it's a positive for people insofar as people can't downvote to make the video look unappealing, but it's a negative because as mentioned in the OP, it will protect companies and their vested interested. Should go a middle ground and make it private on personal channels, and public on monetised, sponsored or advertising videos.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,310 ✭✭✭ Quantum Erasure
    Registered User


    I have no strong feelings one way or the other...



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭ Real Donald Trump
    Registered User




  • Registered Users Posts: 16,086 ✭✭✭✭ VinLieger
    Registered User


    So your complaining about a private company having an agenda because it doesn't suit your own agenda? FYI the only agenda youtube has is to make money.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,791 ✭✭✭✭ pjohnson
    Registered User


    Barring compyright infringement its pretty hard to get banned from Youtube in reality.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,791 ✭✭✭✭ pjohnson
    Registered User


    Not really. If you get demonitized you need to rethink what you were doing rather than blame everyone else.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭ whomitconcerns
    Registered User


    Just sign up for YouTube premium. I'm "in India" so it only costs the equivalent of 1.50 a month for 5 users.... Ahem



  • Registered User


    No - I'm complaining about a private company having an agenda. Full stop.


    I would prefer politics to be removed from business and from sport also. If you start picking sides you end up in a divisive race to the bottom of the barrel.



  • Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭ MilkyToast


    Some of the alternatives are improving. Rumble, Odysee and Bitchute, among others. Spotify may also expand its video hosting capabilities in the future, but I'm not sure they will be able to hold an ideologically neutral line in terms of the content they platform unless they have a Coinbase-style purge of the dribbling moron cohort on their staff.

    Ultimately, Google and Facebook (and Twitter) are ancient behemoths now, in internet terms. And while their current market share makes them powerful and their Bill-Gates-esque habit of buying up innovative competition to shut it down gives that power teeth, they have become very "uncool", and all the while they reveal themselves as being committed to pushing a particular narrative.

    Whether people agree with that narrative or not, the more forward-looking (or perhaps, backward-looking) and intelligent can generally see the problem with an unholy alliance of internet behemoths, corporate media companies and governments coming together to decide what people ought to be allowed to watch or listen to and which ideas are not permitted. So it's natural and right that people will look for alternatives to censorious corporations.

    The main problem with that thus far has been that the same corporations and governments have control of the infrastructure that underpins "the internet". The mantra has always been "If you don't like it, build your own Twitter/Facebook/YouTube!" - which was all well and good until Parler tried it and ended up being kicked out of Bezos-owned Amazon Web Services, taking their site offline, and smeared by the corporate media as being the place where Jan 6 2021 protests on the US Capitol were organised. The fact that far more communication between protest attendees occurred on Facebook and Twitter was neither here nor there, because the ultimate goal of the shut down was to stop those who had been deemed beyond the pale by corporate media and tech behemoths from having any place to speak online.

    That was bad for Parler but good for the future of the internet, since it has spurred people outside of the mainstream and committed to principles (as distinct from laws) of free speech to begin creating infrastructure of their own, getting involved in Fediverse projects and the like, so as to circumvent the ability of the world's richest few to control all online speech and communication.

    At the same time, the effect of big tech companies pushing even marginally off-narrative opinions (no matter their merit or accuracy) away from mainstream social media is slowly creating a mainstream social media landscape that is excessively populated by extreme left-wing posters and increasingly hostile to anyone remotely moderate. That leads more and more people to seek out alternatives, and more and more of those alternatives to consequently become much more rich and diverse places for discussion. People who are not authoritarian by nature generally prefer a wider Overton window, see the merit in "sunlight as disinfectant" for bad ideas, and understand that enlightenment ideals of open debate and discussion are the best way to avoid the sort of epistemic ghettoisation that leads to radicalisation. When they find it, they stick around.

    So yes, YouTube are a private company and they can do what they want, but in any case I don't see their removal of the dislike button as being that big of a deal. IMO they have already passed the peak of their relevance.

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,233 ✭✭✭ Flinty997
    Registered User



    Unfortunately de-monetization is quite random without any logic.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,884 ✭✭✭ $hifty
    Registered User


    Good luck with that. Pretty much every single private company in existence has an agenda. Every single one. "Not having an agenda" is an agenda in, and of, itself.

    Youtube is in the advertising business.....all they care about is clicks and revenue generated from those clicks. They don't care if those clicks come from the left, right, centrists, libertarians.....it all spends the same. What they DO care about, is their name being dragged through the mud when they're associated with anything negative. So they have their own Ts and Cs to keep people broadly in line with what's acceptable and what isn't. Nobody is banned for anything, unless they're in breach of those Ts & Cs. If you want to keep your account, then don't act the maggot and you'll be fine.

    There are literally a million right-wing / Conservative / Tory / whatever-way-you-want-to-frame-it YT channels out there uploading content daily. They manage to keep going by not falling foul of the policy around acceptable content. It's really that simple. There's no panel of blue-haired lesbian vegans sitting around a table deciding which conservatives to ban next, there's just a team of underpaid techs reviewing flagged content and reconciling it against what is and is not allowed. Mess around and it's the ban-hammer for you, my friend.

    Also, re: your last line.........both sport and politics are all about picking a side. It's literally their raison d'etre.



  • Registered Users Posts: 920 ✭✭✭ Brid Hegarty
    Registered User


    ad block on chrome zaps the ads for me. But I can't do this on my iPhone 5 without the latest iOS software... even when not logged in.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭ Sudden Valley
    Registered User


    I think as long as you can give negative comments and they can be upvoted then this doesn't really matter that much. I don't see youtube disappearing or being caught by its competitors Any time soon.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,748 ✭✭✭✭ briany
    Registered User


    The Internet is far too large and nebulous to be one thing or the other, imo. There are services which exist on the Internet that over time allow for less expression by its user base, but there are also places like 4Chan/8Chan which allow users to do virtually anything they want, although being allowed to do anything you want definitely has a very dark side to it as well.

    As for Youtube, removing public dislike counts will be a change that p*sses off a sizable chunk of its users, but that sizable chunk would almost certainly still be a drop in the ocean compared to its overall base, who'll continue using the service. Internet users are basically like jellyfish - and I don't mean that in some superior way - I just mean that they will somehow drift to and congregate at the place where they need to be and offers the most to them. They won't just do so on principle.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24 Philipmcnill
    Registered User


    The assumption of the Internet would be total freedom of opinion and speech. Unfortunately, censorship and manipulation by large corporations has shattered this premise. As always, it's just about making money. Lary Page who discovered Google made the mistake of dismissing this invention practically for free. It was to serve as the good of mankind, as were the seat belts, which the inventor also did not patent the design. History teaches that if you do not patent something because you have good intentions, there will always be someone who will make money on it.



Advertisement