4 ms·

I, and I think most other folks, treated a youtube video as write-once, read-many resource. That trust has taken a massive hit. You can no longer reply on the

I, and I think most other folks, treated a youtube video as write-once, read-many resource. That trust has taken a massive hit. You can no longer reply on the same video-id having the same content as before.

hackernews2000 10y ago
It's obvious that Google is able to change their own videos - and that it does it only to them and maybe premium partners (like Vevo, to upload higher quality versions of music videos). Nothing has changed to anybody until you show any proof that contradicts me.
- Chilinot 10y ago
  This is my thought as well. This was probably an ill thought through change. Most likely they have only done this to their own content or like you said, to other premium partners for small changes like quality issues etc. I'm rather going to assume stressed bad ideas over deliberate dick moves.
- kristofferR 10y ago
  Yeah. I've noticed it a couple of times. For example, the text at 0:09 used to say "Envy" (previous band name) instead of "Nico & Vinz" (new band name), but they got Youtube to replace the video with a new one. And as you can see, the Youtube video with their new name hardcoded into the video was "uploaded" half a year before they actually switched their name (Jan 2014). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg1sT4ILG0w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg1sT4ILG0w
- avar 10y ago
  You can make certain changes to any video and still keep the id. E.g. any arbitrary trimming or other edits allowed by YouTube's video editor, adding annotations to the video itself etc.
  - hackernews2000 10y ago
    OP's fear and my reply were about changes done by Google, not edits done by channel owners.
Gigablah 10y ago
Turns out that database owners are able to modify their own databases, who would've thought.
greggman 10y ago
Is this really all that different from a blog or online news site changing the content of a page or a company updating their terms of service page? It sounds like they realized the message was unclear and made it clearer. I do that all the time to my blogs/sites when I get feedback they aren't clear
- cli 10y ago
  The difference is that I know that written articles can be changed with no notice. I did not know that youtube videos can be edited like this.
  - Chilinot 10y ago
    It is also common practice for news pages and blogs to leave some form of indication that the content has been edited. Youtube did not do that in this case. I would not have had any issues with this if they had indicated that the content had been altered.
  - randlet 10y ago
    Why is video sacred? Of course YouTube has the ability to replace a video with another. Yes they probably should have put a notice about it but this isn't really different than editing an article.
    - bigbugbag 10y ago
      archive.org probably has all the previous versions of the text, it certainly does not have youtube videos. The ability to stealthily rewrite history is a major issue.
    - Drakim 10y ago
      Because that's "how it has been" for a long time. It is well known that if you want to change the content of a video, you gotta delete the old one and reupload it. The reason google doesn't allow you to change it in-place is problaby to avoid "selling" of popular youtube videos to be replaced/injected with ads.
ramblerman 10y ago
> That trust has taken a massive hit. God we can be a melodramatic bunch sometimes...
- anilgulecha 10y ago
  "Trust" was probably an incorrect word, perhaps "certitude" would have been more apt. It's the kind of trust you apply to a tweet/tweet_ID. These resources are expected to be WORM.
  - Terretta 10y ago
    Content "Integrity"
- forgettableuser 10y ago
  I don't think this is intentional by Google, but think the problem comes down to the fact that they keep antagonizing the content creator community that they claim they want to help. The YouTube Heroes program antagonized the content creator community by: 1. By trying to get free labor to clean up the comments system instead of doing it themselves. 2. Creating new concerns about who is going to watch the watchers. 3. Showing new management features for Heroes that content creators themselves have been asking for and still can't get. This secret video edit is another slap in the face because: 1. It potentially undermines public responses they've already posted based on the original video and new people (and trolls) may call them out their complaints that no longer match up with what is said. 2. It shows yet another feature YouTube content creators have been asking for, but can't use themselves. I don't think Google is intentionally trying to tick off their own community, but it is amazing how dense they are. And for content creators, this is just another instance of Google not listening to them.
  - shostack 10y ago
    Presumably Google hires smart product people. So how do you imagine the conversation and decision making process went assuming they were aware of this dynamic?
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
I like that Twitter follows the same principle. There's never ambiguity about what was replied to.
jimjimjim 10y ago
a) you were expecting trust on a free site? b) you replied to videos? given the toxic sludge that seems to seep into most comment lists on youtube videos I don't usually want to even touch them. so for me changing videos is great, more power to them. sometime videos get uploaded with incorrect editing or audio so a chance to fix it is good.
Applejinx 10y ago
Why would you trust them ever?

hackernews2000 10y ago

It's obvious that Google is able to change their own videos - and that it does it only to them and maybe premium partners (like Vevo, to upload higher quality versions of music videos). Nothing has changed to anybody until you show any proof that contradicts me.

Chilinot 10y ago
This is my thought as well. This was probably an ill thought through change. Most likely they have only done this to their own content or like you said, to other premium partners for small changes like quality issues etc. I'm rather going to assume stressed bad ideas over deliberate dick moves.
kristofferR 10y ago
Yeah. I've noticed it a couple of times. For example, the text at 0:09 used to say "Envy" (previous band name) instead of "Nico & Vinz" (new band name), but they got Youtube to replace the video with a new one. And as you can see, the Youtube video with their new name hardcoded into the video was "uploaded" half a year before they actually switched their name (Jan 2014). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg1sT4ILG0w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg1sT4ILG0w
avar 10y ago
You can make certain changes to any video and still keep the id. E.g. any arbitrary trimming or other edits allowed by YouTube's video editor, adding annotations to the video itself etc.
- hackernews2000 10y ago
  OP's fear and my reply were about changes done by Google, not edits done by channel owners.

Gigablah 10y ago

Turns out that database owners are able to modify their own databases, who would've thought.

greggman 10y ago

Is this really all that different from a blog or online news site changing the content of a page or a company updating their terms of service page? It sounds like they realized the message was unclear and made it clearer. I do that all the time to my blogs/sites when I get feedback they aren't clear

cli 10y ago
The difference is that I know that written articles can be changed with no notice. I did not know that youtube videos can be edited like this.
- Chilinot 10y ago
  It is also common practice for news pages and blogs to leave some form of indication that the content has been edited. Youtube did not do that in this case. I would not have had any issues with this if they had indicated that the content had been altered.
- randlet 10y ago
  Why is video sacred? Of course YouTube has the ability to replace a video with another. Yes they probably should have put a notice about it but this isn't really different than editing an article.
  - bigbugbag 10y ago
    archive.org probably has all the previous versions of the text, it certainly does not have youtube videos. The ability to stealthily rewrite history is a major issue.
  - Drakim 10y ago
    Because that's "how it has been" for a long time. It is well known that if you want to change the content of a video, you gotta delete the old one and reupload it. The reason google doesn't allow you to change it in-place is problaby to avoid "selling" of popular youtube videos to be replaced/injected with ads.

ramblerman 10y ago

> That trust has taken a massive hit. God we can be a melodramatic bunch sometimes...

anilgulecha 10y ago
"Trust" was probably an incorrect word, perhaps "certitude" would have been more apt. It's the kind of trust you apply to a tweet/tweet_ID. These resources are expected to be WORM.
- Terretta 10y ago
  Content "Integrity"
forgettableuser 10y ago
I don't think this is intentional by Google, but think the problem comes down to the fact that they keep antagonizing the content creator community that they claim they want to help. The YouTube Heroes program antagonized the content creator community by: 1. By trying to get free labor to clean up the comments system instead of doing it themselves. 2. Creating new concerns about who is going to watch the watchers. 3. Showing new management features for Heroes that content creators themselves have been asking for and still can't get. This secret video edit is another slap in the face because: 1. It potentially undermines public responses they've already posted based on the original video and new people (and trolls) may call them out their complaints that no longer match up with what is said. 2. It shows yet another feature YouTube content creators have been asking for, but can't use themselves. I don't think Google is intentionally trying to tick off their own community, but it is amazing how dense they are. And for content creators, this is just another instance of Google not listening to them.
- shostack 10y ago
  Presumably Google hires smart product people. So how do you imagine the conversation and decision making process went assuming they were aware of this dynamic?

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago

I like that Twitter follows the same principle. There's never ambiguity about what was replied to.

jimjimjim 10y ago

a) you were expecting trust on a free site? b) you replied to videos? given the toxic sludge that seems to seep into most comment lists on youtube videos I don't usually want to even touch them. so for me changing videos is great, more power to them. sometime videos get uploaded with incorrect editing or audio so a chance to fix it is good.

Applejinx 10y ago

Why would you trust them ever?