Youtube cancels public dislike count on videos.

So will they start editing negative comments ? Not at all democratic.

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!

“On Wednesday, YouTube said the removal of dislike counts was because the company wants to improve the inclusivity, respect and safety of its service,” calling it "one of many steps we are taking to continue to protect creators from harassment.”

if I watch a video and express dissatisfaction with it by disliking it... I could be contributing to harassment ? Am I disrespecting? Am I being non inclusive? Hmmmm

When you hear idiots throw around phrases like inclusivity you know it’s just another woke fückhead desperately seeking likes and attention..

soon you’ll watch a football game and be banned from social media platforms if you negatively critique a player... “ you are endangering the mental health of said players, their family and supporters, your comment has been deleted and it’s being sent via complaint to An Garda Siochana...

these eejits are now impinging on our freedom of expression.

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.

Its a private company, they can do what they want, why would you expect anything they do to be democratic?

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.

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

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.

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.