8 ms·

Doesn't this just feed into people's fears about conspiracies? I can't understand why people are signing off on this. Let the Like/Dislike button do its job.

maedla 6y ago
Likes and disklikes are way too easy to game imo
- akhilcacharya 6y ago
  Right, if you looked at likes/dislikes you'd think Trump won re-election by a landslide and Bernie won the primary easily. Joe Biden, who won the most votes of any candidate in American history with 66% turnout and 51.3% of the vote, still had his announcement video [0] at 50/50 like/dislike. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbOU2fTg6cI&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbOU2fTg6cI&feature=youtu.be
  - polka_haunts_us 6y ago
    If he only won 51.3% of the vote then a 50/50 like/dislike sounds rather representative actually, much more so than likes/dislikes on Youtube usually are.
    - gowld 6y ago
      The point is that Likes are feelings, not truthometers.
slg 6y ago
Youtube's recommendation algorithm means that the people who see these videos are already predisposed to believe what is in them. That overrides the usefulness of the Like and Dislike buttons.
- tfehring 6y ago
  Also, even if people outside of those bubbles see and dislike those videos, the Dislike button is more likely to feed and reinforce their primary audience's persecution complex than to cause them to reconsider.
  - slg 6y ago
    I am reminded of the videos we have probably all seen of Flat Earthers doing experiments that are supposed to show whether the Earth is curved, the experiment does show a curve, and then they start to question why their experiment is failing rather than question their beliefs. Beliefs are a pretty strong thing. It is much easier to stop harmful ideas from spreading rather than trying to argue down these harmful ideas once they have already taken a foothold in someone's mind.
    - ouid 6y ago
      I know at lest 2 flat earthers who were given anti-psychotic medication and stopped being flat earthers.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      > It is much easier to stop harmful ideas from spreading rather than trying to argue down these harmful ideas once they have already taken a foothold in someone's mind. It’s fucking terrifying that anyone holds this view, considering the implications. That’s CCP logic. Pro-censorship, “for their own good”? Have we lost our fucking minds?
      - wwright 6y ago
        Do you think Germany lost their fucking minds when they outlawed Holocaust denialism? You have full access to facts here. Nothing is being truly hidden. Hell, all of these videos can still be shared a million other ways. It’s insane, systematic misinformation that YouTube doesn’t want to actively help spread.
  - nbardy 6y ago
dleslie 6y ago
For the existing folks, almost certainly, but it prevents the spread of misinformation; and more importantly, it prevents the _repetitive reinforcement_ of misinformation.
- generalizations 6y ago
  Assuming it's misinformation, this time but especially in the future.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Maybe for that one platform on this one issue. It wouldn't prevent the major networks from repeatedly spreading misinformation, nor on unidentified issues. I remember for years the major networks were stating that the gender wage gap was the difference between a man and a woman in the same job with all else being equal. Yet the BLS study they were getting the numbers from show a fundamentally different issue. YouTube can censor whatever and however they want. I just don't see this as making much of an impact either way.
derefr 6y ago
The dislike button might inform The Algorithm, and it might inform users who are using the YouTube web UI (if they care to look); but it remains silent on video embeds on Facebook/Twitter/etc, and on "less-interactive" watching interfaces like the YouTube Apple/Android TV apps.
munchbunny 6y ago
Perhaps? But those people probably already think Youtube's part of any number of conspiracies already.
zionic 6y ago
This plays exactly into their narrative. "If they didn't steal it, they wouldn't have to work so hard to cover it up!" Megacorps should never become arbiters of truth.
- compiler-guy 6y ago
  Publishers have always been the arbiters of truth. "Anyone can publish anything targeting anyone" is a very recent development.
  - baggy_trough 6y ago
    YouTube was originally about "you" publishing whatever you want to the "tube". Now it's turning into some kind of censored truth filter, which is not very appealing.
    - snarf21 6y ago
      It is about being appealing to the advertisers. Nothing else matters.
      - txsoftwaredev 6y ago
        Why would an advertiser not like this type of content? They would know exactly who to target if they were watching this content.
  - mynameismonkey 6y ago
    Sure, but are they publishers, or hosters? Isn't that the whole CDA Section 230 debate? Either be an impartial host (other than legal requirements) or be a publisher with all the trappings that come with that.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
      > Sure, but are they publishers, or hosters? If a platform chooses a video to play next, based on "what we know you like, what we think you'll like" then it cannot be a mere hoster. Choosing means making a choice. Youtube has been called a "radicalisation engine" with some evidence for that (search terms: "youtube radicalization", "Algorithmic Extremism"). This might just be a terrible consequence of "maximising engagement" rather than pushing a fixed political agenda. But evidently, they want to do better.
invalidusernam3 6y ago
I think you're overestimating the average internet user. A lot of people think that because they view something online, it gives it authority. They fail to understand anyone can (and does) post content online. I've often thought this way of thinking is a remnant of the media we've consumed in the past, where there were higher standards because producing media was more exclusive. Think print, radio, TV. On those mediums not just anyone could produce content.
- kazinator 6y ago
  You mean those dumb boomers and generation X'ers who were raised on the boob tube rather than YouTube.
- tjr225 6y ago
  It is so strange to me specifically because the cohort that seems to be eating this up(my parents age, I mean) were the same ones telling me NOT to believe anything I read on the internet when I was young and the internet was new. What happened?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    They started getting targeted with stuff aimed at their existing biases. (Along with an endless stream of Minions memes, it would seem.)
  - gowld 6y ago
    Age-related cognitive decline.
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    The left has become the authoritarian right without realizing it.
    - sixothree 6y ago
      And forcing a private company to carry content it disagrees with is what exactly?
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I doubt this policy is based on any sort of broad principle. Youtube just doesn't want its platform to play any part in the currently ongoing coup attempt.
- mesozoic 6y ago
  If there is widespread election fraud (which has not been proven and includes an undefined term used as a negative persuasion tool "widespread" anyway) then that is the coup attempt you refer to and their platform is host to uncountable instances of people claiming a certain person has been elected and now there will be no counter information for people to consider the alternatives.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Yes, that's true. Again, I don't think this is about any higher principle; many people just aren't willing to maintain editorial neutrality with respect to a coup, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to.
superjan 6y ago
But what if people don’t “Like” the truth?
- glenstein 6y ago
  This is the critical question, and it baffles me that people don't reflect on this a bit more. The "marketplace of ideas", whether it be through back-and-forth dialogue expressed through media platforms, or through likes or comment sections or follower amounts... there's no reason to believe that that process leads to the best ideas coming to the top. So that can't and shouldn't be cited as a reason not to be concerned over the spread of misinformation.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > there's no reason to believe that that process leads to the best ideas coming to the top. I disagree, the reason is because when people have access to multiple ideas they can choose what ideas are best for themselves and other people can judge the outcome based on both the ideas and their effects on people. > So that can't and shouldn't be cited as a reason not to be concerned over the spread of misinformation. Without free and open exchange of ideas its not nearly as easy to even tell what is misinformation.
13415 6y ago
I'd remove this kind of content from a public pinboard anytime if I was in charge of one, so I personally find it hard to object if Youtube removes it. However, I also believe that any algorithmic removal without human oversight should be prohibited by law. The abuse of DMCA requests should be addressed, namely by prohibiting algorithmically generated requests and by treating repeated bogus DMCA takedown requests in a way similar to commercial copyright infringement. Just letting companies take down whatever they like in whatever way they want is not the right solution. They are basically "information utilities" and provide public goods of a value to society that goes beyond those company's personal advertisement income.
newacct583 6y ago
> Let the Like/Dislike button do its job. Community moderation has completely and totally failed. Giant, enormous lies are being told to half the population without barrier. People who want to believe in a completely fabricated story about election fraud have all their eyeballs can get. Fine. I get the free speech angle. But... who cares about free speech when democracy is dying in front of us? Free speech was supposed to have prevented this. It made it worse. I don't have the answer here. But all I can see is people trying to deny the problem.
- dukeofdoom 6y ago
  Millions of people believe the election was rigged in the US. This is a total failure of building trust in elections, regardless weather its true or not. I personally believe in "Trust but Verify". There is no way to verify this election. The process is made impossible, because signature check was not done on mail in ballots in any meaningful way. And has not been done now either in any of the recounts. We only know that currently 0.02% of ballots were rejected vs 6% previous elections. To my common sense, this election could have been spammed with mail in ballots, and almost everything accepted. No meaningful signature match was performed, when only 0.02% of ballots were rejected.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > This is a total failure of building trust in elections Rather it's a success in tearing down that trust. And the tools used in that effort were lies like this one: > We only know that currently 0.02% of ballots were rejected vs 6% previous elections. See: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-georgia-rejected-ballots-fo/fact-check-georgia-rejected-ballots-did-not-go-from-4-to-almost-zero-in-2020-idUSKBN2832CM https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-georgia-rejecte... It's lies. It's all lies. You're reading lies and choosing to believe them[1]. So is it any wonder that Youtube is thinking that maybe they shouldn't have a hand in spreading those lies? [1] As proven by your reply that the link does not "prove a lie"! That's not the way the burden of proof works. You are choosing to believe this categorical statement given to you without support. That is a "lie" in the vernacular.
rglover 6y ago
Because the conspiracy is real. These are not stupid people. The goal isn't to limit misinformation, it's to limit information. This sets a precedent to allow for more extreme limitations. It's certainly frightening to consider, but any intellectually honest person needs to contemplate the reality that mega corporations, media companies, and governments do not have your best interests in mind, and that yes, they're willing to do nefarious things to control your reality. This is just another stepping stone on the road to total domination. And before you downvote me, take ten minutes to really think about what I'm saying. If you wish, send me an email to have a long-form conversation.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  Hell yeah. I'm all for it. I think we can all agree that putting information on the internet was a mistake. Ask Google who invented running, or how many legs a horse has. The answers are clear, authoritative, and obviously wrong. And they make billions of dollars. We're expected to believe some Podunk in the middle of Podubkstan has more access to facts? Please. The internet, as in its companies and its users, cannot separate truth from fiction. Thus, we need to simply remove all facts. An internet without the pretence of truth would be a much more honest place.
  - rglover 6y ago
    > We're expected to believe some Podunk in the middle of Podubkstan has more access to facts? Certain facts, yes. A lot of great minds are disconnected from institutions and corporations (Gwern comes to mind-https://www.gwern.net/index https://www.gwern.net/index). And when some of the things they've taken the time to research or present arguments on go against the preferred narrative of those institutions, now, they can be disappeared with this decision as precedent. Putting that into an example: say Corporation X releases a new frozen food that triggers a rare autoimmune disease leading to death in certain people. A small-town doctor ("Podunk") has experience with that disease, understands why the food triggers the response it does, and speaks out. If Corporation X doesn't like that message, with moves like this, now it will be justified (or at least, rationalized) to get rid of that doctor's information. The argument you're presenting here—that they're not credentialed enough—means more people are ultimately in harm's way.

maedla 6y ago

Likes and disklikes are way too easy to game imo

akhilcacharya 6y ago
Right, if you looked at likes/dislikes you'd think Trump won re-election by a landslide and Bernie won the primary easily. Joe Biden, who won the most votes of any candidate in American history with 66% turnout and 51.3% of the vote, still had his announcement video [0] at 50/50 like/dislike. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbOU2fTg6cI&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbOU2fTg6cI&feature=youtu.be
- polka_haunts_us 6y ago
  If he only won 51.3% of the vote then a 50/50 like/dislike sounds rather representative actually, much more so than likes/dislikes on Youtube usually are.
  - gowld 6y ago
    The point is that Likes are feelings, not truthometers.

slg 6y ago

Youtube's recommendation algorithm means that the people who see these videos are already predisposed to believe what is in them. That overrides the usefulness of the Like and Dislike buttons.

tfehring 6y ago
Also, even if people outside of those bubbles see and dislike those videos, the Dislike button is more likely to feed and reinforce their primary audience's persecution complex than to cause them to reconsider.
- slg 6y ago
  I am reminded of the videos we have probably all seen of Flat Earthers doing experiments that are supposed to show whether the Earth is curved, the experiment does show a curve, and then they start to question why their experiment is failing rather than question their beliefs. Beliefs are a pretty strong thing. It is much easier to stop harmful ideas from spreading rather than trying to argue down these harmful ideas once they have already taken a foothold in someone's mind.
  - ouid 6y ago
    I know at lest 2 flat earthers who were given anti-psychotic medication and stopped being flat earthers.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    > It is much easier to stop harmful ideas from spreading rather than trying to argue down these harmful ideas once they have already taken a foothold in someone's mind. It’s fucking terrifying that anyone holds this view, considering the implications. That’s CCP logic. Pro-censorship, “for their own good”? Have we lost our fucking minds?
    - wwright 6y ago
      Do you think Germany lost their fucking minds when they outlawed Holocaust denialism? You have full access to facts here. Nothing is being truly hidden. Hell, all of these videos can still be shared a million other ways. It’s insane, systematic misinformation that YouTube doesn’t want to actively help spread.
- nbardy 6y ago

dleslie 6y ago

For the existing folks, almost certainly, but it prevents the spread of misinformation; and more importantly, it prevents the _repetitive reinforcement_ of misinformation.

generalizations 6y ago
Assuming it's misinformation, this time but especially in the future.
giantg2 6y ago
Maybe for that one platform on this one issue. It wouldn't prevent the major networks from repeatedly spreading misinformation, nor on unidentified issues. I remember for years the major networks were stating that the gender wage gap was the difference between a man and a woman in the same job with all else being equal. Yet the BLS study they were getting the numbers from show a fundamentally different issue. YouTube can censor whatever and however they want. I just don't see this as making much of an impact either way.

derefr 6y ago

The dislike button might inform The Algorithm, and it might inform users who are using the YouTube web UI (if they care to look); but it remains silent on video embeds on Facebook/Twitter/etc, and on "less-interactive" watching interfaces like the YouTube Apple/Android TV apps.

munchbunny 6y ago

Perhaps? But those people probably already think Youtube's part of any number of conspiracies already.

zionic 6y ago

This plays exactly into their narrative. "If they didn't steal it, they wouldn't have to work so hard to cover it up!" Megacorps should never become arbiters of truth.

compiler-guy 6y ago
Publishers have always been the arbiters of truth. "Anyone can publish anything targeting anyone" is a very recent development.
- baggy_trough 6y ago
  YouTube was originally about "you" publishing whatever you want to the "tube". Now it's turning into some kind of censored truth filter, which is not very appealing.
  - snarf21 6y ago
    It is about being appealing to the advertisers. Nothing else matters.
    - txsoftwaredev 6y ago
      Why would an advertiser not like this type of content? They would know exactly who to target if they were watching this content.
- mynameismonkey 6y ago
  Sure, but are they publishers, or hosters? Isn't that the whole CDA Section 230 debate? Either be an impartial host (other than legal requirements) or be a publisher with all the trappings that come with that.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    > Sure, but are they publishers, or hosters? If a platform chooses a video to play next, based on "what we know you like, what we think you'll like" then it cannot be a mere hoster. Choosing means making a choice. Youtube has been called a "radicalisation engine" with some evidence for that (search terms: "youtube radicalization", "Algorithmic Extremism"). This might just be a terrible consequence of "maximising engagement" rather than pushing a fixed political agenda. But evidently, they want to do better.

invalidusernam3 6y ago

I think you're overestimating the average internet user. A lot of people think that because they view something online, it gives it authority. They fail to understand anyone can (and does) post content online. I've often thought this way of thinking is a remnant of the media we've consumed in the past, where there were higher standards because producing media was more exclusive. Think print, radio, TV. On those mediums not just anyone could produce content.

kazinator 6y ago
You mean those dumb boomers and generation X'ers who were raised on the boob tube rather than YouTube.
tjr225 6y ago
It is so strange to me specifically because the cohort that seems to be eating this up(my parents age, I mean) were the same ones telling me NOT to believe anything I read on the internet when I was young and the internet was new. What happened?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  They started getting targeted with stuff aimed at their existing biases. (Along with an endless stream of Minions memes, it would seem.)
- gowld 6y ago
  Age-related cognitive decline.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  The left has become the authoritarian right without realizing it.
  - sixothree 6y ago
    And forcing a private company to carry content it disagrees with is what exactly?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I doubt this policy is based on any sort of broad principle. Youtube just doesn't want its platform to play any part in the currently ongoing coup attempt.

mesozoic 6y ago
If there is widespread election fraud (which has not been proven and includes an undefined term used as a negative persuasion tool "widespread" anyway) then that is the coup attempt you refer to and their platform is host to uncountable instances of people claiming a certain person has been elected and now there will be no counter information for people to consider the alternatives.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Yes, that's true. Again, I don't think this is about any higher principle; many people just aren't willing to maintain editorial neutrality with respect to a coup, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to.

superjan 6y ago

But what if people don’t “Like” the truth?

glenstein 6y ago
This is the critical question, and it baffles me that people don't reflect on this a bit more. The "marketplace of ideas", whether it be through back-and-forth dialogue expressed through media platforms, or through likes or comment sections or follower amounts... there's no reason to believe that that process leads to the best ideas coming to the top. So that can't and shouldn't be cited as a reason not to be concerned over the spread of misinformation.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > there's no reason to believe that that process leads to the best ideas coming to the top. I disagree, the reason is because when people have access to multiple ideas they can choose what ideas are best for themselves and other people can judge the outcome based on both the ideas and their effects on people. > So that can't and shouldn't be cited as a reason not to be concerned over the spread of misinformation. Without free and open exchange of ideas its not nearly as easy to even tell what is misinformation.

13415 6y ago

I'd remove this kind of content from a public pinboard anytime if I was in charge of one, so I personally find it hard to object if Youtube removes it. However, I also believe that any algorithmic removal without human oversight should be prohibited by law. The abuse of DMCA requests should be addressed, namely by prohibiting algorithmically generated requests and by treating repeated bogus DMCA takedown requests in a way similar to commercial copyright infringement. Just letting companies take down whatever they like in whatever way they want is not the right solution. They are basically "information utilities" and provide public goods of a value to society that goes beyond those company's personal advertisement income.

newacct583 6y ago

> Let the Like/Dislike button do its job. Community moderation has completely and totally failed. Giant, enormous lies are being told to half the population without barrier. People who want to believe in a completely fabricated story about election fraud have all their eyeballs can get. Fine. I get the free speech angle. But... who cares about free speech when democracy is dying in front of us? Free speech was supposed to have prevented this. It made it worse. I don't have the answer here. But all I can see is people trying to deny the problem.

dukeofdoom 6y ago
Millions of people believe the election was rigged in the US. This is a total failure of building trust in elections, regardless weather its true or not. I personally believe in "Trust but Verify". There is no way to verify this election. The process is made impossible, because signature check was not done on mail in ballots in any meaningful way. And has not been done now either in any of the recounts. We only know that currently 0.02% of ballots were rejected vs 6% previous elections. To my common sense, this election could have been spammed with mail in ballots, and almost everything accepted. No meaningful signature match was performed, when only 0.02% of ballots were rejected.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > This is a total failure of building trust in elections Rather it's a success in tearing down that trust. And the tools used in that effort were lies like this one: > We only know that currently 0.02% of ballots were rejected vs 6% previous elections. See: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-georgia-rejected-ballots-fo/fact-check-georgia-rejected-ballots-did-not-go-from-4-to-almost-zero-in-2020-idUSKBN2832CM https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-georgia-rejecte... It's lies. It's all lies. You're reading lies and choosing to believe them[1]. So is it any wonder that Youtube is thinking that maybe they shouldn't have a hand in spreading those lies? [1] As proven by your reply that the link does not "prove a lie"! That's not the way the burden of proof works. You are choosing to believe this categorical statement given to you without support. That is a "lie" in the vernacular.

rglover 6y ago

Because the conspiracy is real. These are not stupid people. The goal isn't to limit misinformation, it's to limit information. This sets a precedent to allow for more extreme limitations. It's certainly frightening to consider, but any intellectually honest person needs to contemplate the reality that mega corporations, media companies, and governments do not have your best interests in mind, and that yes, they're willing to do nefarious things to control your reality. This is just another stepping stone on the road to total domination. And before you downvote me, take ten minutes to really think about what I'm saying. If you wish, send me an email to have a long-form conversation.

freeone3000 6y ago
Hell yeah. I'm all for it. I think we can all agree that putting information on the internet was a mistake. Ask Google who invented running, or how many legs a horse has. The answers are clear, authoritative, and obviously wrong. And they make billions of dollars. We're expected to believe some Podunk in the middle of Podubkstan has more access to facts? Please. The internet, as in its companies and its users, cannot separate truth from fiction. Thus, we need to simply remove all facts. An internet without the pretence of truth would be a much more honest place.
- rglover 6y ago
  > We're expected to believe some Podunk in the middle of Podubkstan has more access to facts? Certain facts, yes. A lot of great minds are disconnected from institutions and corporations (Gwern comes to mind-https://www.gwern.net/index https://www.gwern.net/index). And when some of the things they've taken the time to research or present arguments on go against the preferred narrative of those institutions, now, they can be disappeared with this decision as precedent. Putting that into an example: say Corporation X releases a new frozen food that triggers a rare autoimmune disease leading to death in certain people. A small-town doctor ("Podunk") has experience with that disease, understands why the food triggers the response it does, and speaks out. If Corporation X doesn't like that message, with moves like this, now it will be justified (or at least, rationalized) to get rid of that doctor's information. The argument you're presenting here—that they're not credentialed enough—means more people are ultimately in harm's way.