5 ms·

The only solution is not to engage with emotionally manipulative content. Even, for example, with nerdy YouTube channels that I love, if a video shows up in my

by crmd 6y ago

The only solution is not to engage with emotionally manipulative content. Even, for example, with nerdy YouTube channels that I love, if a video shows up in my feed: * with a title $villain $unflattering_third_person_present_verb $something * with the format $hero $flattering_third_person_present_verb $something * a person in the thumbnail making an o-face[1] for any reason Then I simply don’t click on it. [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/zme97a/inside-the-strange-world-of-youtube-thumbnails https://www.vice.com/en/article/zme97a/inside-the-strange-wo...

firebaze 6y ago
Can't agree more. Any headline which invokes a "what, really?" response should not be clicked, instead the keywords (like $villain or $unflattering_third_person or $unique_despicable_action) should be searched (for pro's, in a private window via DuckDuckGo or if that sucks (like, most of the time)) with google (may involve skipping the first, second or even third page of results for _hot_ clickbait topics). With some luck there'll be a really credible secondary, or even better, the primary source. Those usually come without clickbait headlines. This is much better that an ad-blocker, since it doesn't increase click count for the attention-seeking clickbait news provider, and yields no money for them. In the long run, this drains their money stream. At least I hope so. It is also simple enough to understand and follow to pass over to most non-IT-friends and acquaintances.
gryfft 6y ago
I use the same rubric but go one step further and tell YouTube not to recommend any videos from that channel.
- CompuHacker 6y ago
  Have attempted to do this with recommendations for 30-120s clips with 500,000 to 2,000,000 views from old TV shows, cartoons, and movies. It's not working. I'd rather read a spreadsheet with a list of public YouTube video IDs/metadata than experience the silence in the downtime between worthwhile videos.
- CraigJPerry 6y ago
  Is that possible? There's a channel i just don't want to see. Ever. I've blocked the channel but it regularly shows up in recommendations. I actually have a todo item to see if i can't force the issue with a uBlock Origin rule.
  - gryfft 6y ago
    When you click the three dots, it's the second option from the bottom.[1] It's not perfect, but I feel that eliminating entire channels at a time from my recommendations is a proportionate response to the engagement-maximization algorithm. [1] https://i.imgur.com/JfYYTSk.png https://i.imgur.com/JfYYTSk.png
smt88 6y ago
But you've already read it, even if you don't click, so hasn't it already affected you?
justin66 6y ago
That might be a good strategy for dealing with youtube videos but it's not an equally good strategy for dealing with print media. The thing to remember about magazine or newspaper articles is that the author does not typically have any input on what the headline will be. A great article by a great author will quite often get a ridiculous headline from an editor, for all the bad reasons an editor might have: baiting the audience, putting their own spin on the story, or whatever. You'll miss some things if you just skip a story because of a bad headline, and I think the cited article is just another indicator that we ought to deliberately not give headlines too much thought.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- the-pigeon 6y ago
  How is journalism such a sad joke that things like that are "normal"?
  - genericone 6y ago
    Each publication has always had a lowest common denominator target. The headlines are an indication of the audience. In latter days, all journalists expect their audience to be stupid.
- forgingahead 6y ago
  The best thing then is to ignore/block print media as well. Legacy media institutions have destroyed their credibility because of this race to the bottom - for a brief moment in history, there was a nice thought that the subscription revenue model would allow more fair and balanced reporting compared to the ad-revenue models (since they wouldn't need clickbait headlines/stories). Turns out that people don't want to pay to hear things they don't like. So it's all become more polarized, and those of us who really would like to know what is going on have no clue what is true or not any longer. Break the legacy institutions by boycotting them, and encourage individual journalists to self-publish. The credibility of the person will reign, and there is a huge market for independents who are actually interested in what is happening around the world without all the partisan spin.
anigbrowl 6y ago
Once you read a headline it's you've already engaged with it. Maybe we could address the problem of why some media outlets keep polluting the semantic space instead of just telling consumers to change their behavior as they trudge through an ever-rising tide of information sludge.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fabatka 6y ago
Is there a youtube client (or browser extension) that accepts a whitelist of channels and only shows videos from those? This got me thinking... A browser extension deleting everything from the front page except videos from the given channels might not even be that complicated. Hm, I might end up creating a simple extension like this... Edit: Sorry for being OT
- baby 6y ago
  I think this is what we need: plugins that protect users. Allow users to vote against webpages that are too “sensational” or something.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    You can't crowdsource good taste. All you'll end up with is popular content gets upvoted and unpopular content doesn't. Every voting system open to the masses ends up this way. So many problems on the Internet stem from people confusing popularity with quality.
    - baby 6y ago
      What about wikipedia?
- the_pwner224 6y ago
  NewPipe can do this on Android. Search for your channels, click the subscribe button, then on the home screen of the app there's a tab with the chronological list of videos from your subscriptions. You can hide the YouTube trending tab from the home screen, and within videos you can swipe between comments & suggested/related videos, so you don't lose discovery of new content.
baby 6y ago
Any strategy that requires a mental effort from people is likely not going to work at scale.
wnevets 6y ago
I had to stop watching Scotty Kilmer because of his thumbnails/titles. At one point it felt like every new video was click baited with him being sent to prison, dying, retiring or being forced to shut down to business. I'm willing to tolerate the o-face from channels who put out good content on a regular basis tho.
- spicymaki 6y ago
  Yes, I did the same thing about a year ago. I enjoyed his insight as a mechanic, but could not stay for the unsavory click bait. Unfortunately the technique seem to be effective and might be the only method for some of these channels to grow after a certain threshold.
jackvalentine 6y ago
I love this extension for making YouTube less horrible. It removes the thumbnails and returns to 'frame from the video'. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/clickbait-remover-for-youtube/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/clickbait-rem...
- backing 6y ago
  Thank you
- noir_lord 6y ago
  That's lovely, Thank you for the link.
eddytrex_ 6y ago
agree with that, I also click on "no interested"
thelittleone 6y ago
Australia news sites favorite words: "terrifying", "chilling", "tragic", "sinister", "slammed". It's almost as if there's an editor imposed target / quota for excessively emotional words on the first page.
- rtx 6y ago
  Slammed, I dont know why but it triggers me.
freeflight 6y ago
But if just reading the headline is already having an emotional impact, as the source claims, then even that method won't change much as you will still be exposed to the title. Which presents kind of an difficult problem: You won't know if an headline is emotional without actually reading it, but once you read it, and it turns out to be emotional, you will already be affected.
- nine_k 6y ago
  Developing the faculty to emotionally detach from things you read or see, and stay level-headed, is useful across one's entire life. Doctors, first responders, and other people who face extreme situations develop it to be able to do their jobs. But it's not out of reach for a person who just practices it consciously. This is not about removing your emotions, it's about letting your mind observe the flow of emotions, and still stay and act sober.
  - freeflight 6y ago
    As somebody working in palliative care I'm well aware about facing emotionally extreme situations, it's something HCWs, first responders and other social job fields, have been struggling with for as long as these occupations have existed. That's also exactly why these sectors suffer from way above average depression rates, even tho most of them have the training, knowledge and, ideally, access facilities that should help them deal with it better. But it's not simple as you make it out to be: Humans are emotional beings, whether we like that or not, it's not something we can "train away" or just turn off on demand, it's part of what makes us humans. What training helps with is staying clear and sober in the moment where it counts, but that does not negate the long-term impact of regularly being exposed to such situations and the emotional toll they excerpt; It adds up, and creeps back up in the most irrelevant contexts. To bring it back to the topic: When participants rationally knew the source and thus most likely the claim to not to be credible, even with that rational knowledge, the headline still ended up having an emotional impact on them. Which will very likely add up over time just as it does with social jobs, but trying to evade that impact seems impossible: There is no way to know if a headline is emotional until actually reading and parsing it, but by that point it's apparently already too late.

by crmd 6y ago

firebaze 6y ago

Can't agree more. Any headline which invokes a "what, really?" response should not be clicked, instead the keywords (like $villain or $unflattering_third_person or $unique_despicable_action) should be searched (for pro's, in a private window via DuckDuckGo or if that sucks (like, most of the time)) with google (may involve skipping the first, second or even third page of results for _hot_ clickbait topics). With some luck there'll be a really credible secondary, or even better, the primary source. Those usually come without clickbait headlines. This is much better that an ad-blocker, since it doesn't increase click count for the attention-seeking clickbait news provider, and yields no money for them. In the long run, this drains their money stream. At least I hope so. It is also simple enough to understand and follow to pass over to most non-IT-friends and acquaintances.

gryfft 6y ago

I use the same rubric but go one step further and tell YouTube not to recommend any videos from that channel.

CompuHacker 6y ago
Have attempted to do this with recommendations for 30-120s clips with 500,000 to 2,000,000 views from old TV shows, cartoons, and movies. It's not working. I'd rather read a spreadsheet with a list of public YouTube video IDs/metadata than experience the silence in the downtime between worthwhile videos.
CraigJPerry 6y ago
Is that possible? There's a channel i just don't want to see. Ever. I've blocked the channel but it regularly shows up in recommendations. I actually have a todo item to see if i can't force the issue with a uBlock Origin rule.
- gryfft 6y ago
  When you click the three dots, it's the second option from the bottom.[1] It's not perfect, but I feel that eliminating entire channels at a time from my recommendations is a proportionate response to the engagement-maximization algorithm. [1] https://i.imgur.com/JfYYTSk.png https://i.imgur.com/JfYYTSk.png

smt88 6y ago

But you've already read it, even if you don't click, so hasn't it already affected you?

justin66 6y ago

That might be a good strategy for dealing with youtube videos but it's not an equally good strategy for dealing with print media. The thing to remember about magazine or newspaper articles is that the author does not typically have any input on what the headline will be. A great article by a great author will quite often get a ridiculous headline from an editor, for all the bad reasons an editor might have: baiting the audience, putting their own spin on the story, or whatever. You'll miss some things if you just skip a story because of a bad headline, and I think the cited article is just another indicator that we ought to deliberately not give headlines too much thought.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
the-pigeon 6y ago
How is journalism such a sad joke that things like that are "normal"?
- genericone 6y ago
  Each publication has always had a lowest common denominator target. The headlines are an indication of the audience. In latter days, all journalists expect their audience to be stupid.
forgingahead 6y ago
The best thing then is to ignore/block print media as well. Legacy media institutions have destroyed their credibility because of this race to the bottom - for a brief moment in history, there was a nice thought that the subscription revenue model would allow more fair and balanced reporting compared to the ad-revenue models (since they wouldn't need clickbait headlines/stories). Turns out that people don't want to pay to hear things they don't like. So it's all become more polarized, and those of us who really would like to know what is going on have no clue what is true or not any longer. Break the legacy institutions by boycotting them, and encourage individual journalists to self-publish. The credibility of the person will reign, and there is a huge market for independents who are actually interested in what is happening around the world without all the partisan spin.

anigbrowl 6y ago

Once you read a headline it's you've already engaged with it. Maybe we could address the problem of why some media outlets keep polluting the semantic space instead of just telling consumers to change their behavior as they trudge through an ever-rising tide of information sludge.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

fabatka 6y ago

Is there a youtube client (or browser extension) that accepts a whitelist of channels and only shows videos from those? This got me thinking... A browser extension deleting everything from the front page except videos from the given channels might not even be that complicated. Hm, I might end up creating a simple extension like this... Edit: Sorry for being OT

baby 6y ago
I think this is what we need: plugins that protect users. Allow users to vote against webpages that are too “sensational” or something.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  You can't crowdsource good taste. All you'll end up with is popular content gets upvoted and unpopular content doesn't. Every voting system open to the masses ends up this way. So many problems on the Internet stem from people confusing popularity with quality.
  - baby 6y ago
    What about wikipedia?
the_pwner224 6y ago
NewPipe can do this on Android. Search for your channels, click the subscribe button, then on the home screen of the app there's a tab with the chronological list of videos from your subscriptions. You can hide the YouTube trending tab from the home screen, and within videos you can swipe between comments & suggested/related videos, so you don't lose discovery of new content.

baby 6y ago

Any strategy that requires a mental effort from people is likely not going to work at scale.

wnevets 6y ago

I had to stop watching Scotty Kilmer because of his thumbnails/titles. At one point it felt like every new video was click baited with him being sent to prison, dying, retiring or being forced to shut down to business. I'm willing to tolerate the o-face from channels who put out good content on a regular basis tho.

spicymaki 6y ago
Yes, I did the same thing about a year ago. I enjoyed his insight as a mechanic, but could not stay for the unsavory click bait. Unfortunately the technique seem to be effective and might be the only method for some of these channels to grow after a certain threshold.

jackvalentine 6y ago

I love this extension for making YouTube less horrible. It removes the thumbnails and returns to 'frame from the video'. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/clickbait-remover-for-youtube/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/clickbait-rem...

backing 6y ago
Thank you
noir_lord 6y ago
That's lovely, Thank you for the link.

eddytrex_ 6y ago

agree with that, I also click on "no interested"

thelittleone 6y ago

Australia news sites favorite words: "terrifying", "chilling", "tragic", "sinister", "slammed". It's almost as if there's an editor imposed target / quota for excessively emotional words on the first page.

rtx 6y ago
Slammed, I dont know why but it triggers me.

freeflight 6y ago

But if just reading the headline is already having an emotional impact, as the source claims, then even that method won't change much as you will still be exposed to the title. Which presents kind of an difficult problem: You won't know if an headline is emotional without actually reading it, but once you read it, and it turns out to be emotional, you will already be affected.

nine_k 6y ago
Developing the faculty to emotionally detach from things you read or see, and stay level-headed, is useful across one's entire life. Doctors, first responders, and other people who face extreme situations develop it to be able to do their jobs. But it's not out of reach for a person who just practices it consciously. This is not about removing your emotions, it's about letting your mind observe the flow of emotions, and still stay and act sober.
- freeflight 6y ago
  As somebody working in palliative care I'm well aware about facing emotionally extreme situations, it's something HCWs, first responders and other social job fields, have been struggling with for as long as these occupations have existed. That's also exactly why these sectors suffer from way above average depression rates, even tho most of them have the training, knowledge and, ideally, access facilities that should help them deal with it better. But it's not simple as you make it out to be: Humans are emotional beings, whether we like that or not, it's not something we can "train away" or just turn off on demand, it's part of what makes us humans. What training helps with is staying clear and sober in the moment where it counts, but that does not negate the long-term impact of regularly being exposed to such situations and the emotional toll they excerpt; It adds up, and creeps back up in the most irrelevant contexts. To bring it back to the topic: When participants rationally knew the source and thus most likely the claim to not to be credible, even with that rational knowledge, the headline still ended up having an emotional impact on them. Which will very likely add up over time just as it does with social jobs, but trying to evade that impact seems impossible: There is no way to know if a headline is emotional until actually reading and parsing it, but by that point it's apparently already too late.