5 ms·

I spent some time looking at Youtube reccommendations in fresh browser session (no cookies or account) yesterday and was contiually amazed by the types of video

by ve55 5y ago

I spent some time looking at Youtube reccommendations in fresh browser session (no cookies or account) yesterday and was contiually amazed by the types of videos that would often have 10M or even 100M views. The clickbait styles used by nearly all large channels have gotten so amazingly efficient that it seems like they near-perfectly pinpoint various biases and draws in our psyche now, and looking at the large categories of different genres of suggestions was an almost surreal experience in how similarly they targeted potential viewers. A lot of the content was obviously fake, and much of what was not obviously fake was significantly exaggerated for obvious reasons, with the method of exaggeration varying according to the genre of content. I spent a lot of time thinking about the platform as a whole after this, about all of the both wonderful and terrible changes it causes for our world. Some sections of YouTube are not just equivalent to television, but much worse and clearly actively harmful, but other sections are so amazing (educational content being one of the best examples imo) that it would be far too careless to dismiss the platform or its incentives as inherently bad. I suppose the best we could hope for is that we find some ways to improve the viral algorithms (and incentive structures that produce them) that control our Internet ecosystem over time, because there are better ways to align incentives with the goals of humanity than we are currently doing, even if it is hard to get there. I often find that society actually does really care about and improve on these issues, but the reason why it is often easier to be pessimistic is because the changes that we make in response often occur very slowly, often over the span of decades even.

download13 5y ago
Removing recommendation systems entirely, for now, would be a massive improvement, but that won't happen because none of us get input into that decision. The people who make it have only profit to consider, and the recommendation system gets them more profit.
- GuB-42 5y ago
  There is no way YouTube could work without a recommendation system. The volume is so huge you would get lost in the middle of videos of kids posting gameplay sessions for their friends. You can get good recommendation, but you have to let YouTube track you, if you are the kind with no account and block every tracker, you will get the stuff that is the most generic and gets the most clicks, because that's the default. It is good if you want to do a sociological study, but it is unlikely to match your tastes because the algorithm doesn't know your tastes. I guess that if you really don't like the YouTube recommendation system, you can add a few rules to your favorite ad blocker, the tag ids are not obfuscated.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > There is no way YouTube could work without a recommendation system. This doesn't make any sense. The recommendation system that exists right now will only tell you to keep watching more of things you already watch. YouTube already works without a recommendation system. Recommendations by YouTube are the source of... very little that I watch there. You watch things because you already know what you want and search for it, or because you got a recommendation from something other than the YouTube recommendations.
    - GuB-42 5y ago
      Recommendations are recommendations, whether it comes from YouTube of from outside of YouTube. Separating the host and recommendation engine has pros and cons, that are mostly both sides of the same coin. You are getting more of what you are interested in, but you get even less diversity. You are less likely to binge watch useless stuff, but it makes it harder to get more content about the topic you are interested in. Less platform independence, but worse integration. Things become even more complex when you consider monetization. Obviously, YouTube does that for money, but more money for YouTube also means more money for creators. And if you begin to take into account alternative revenue streams (Patreon, sponsors, ...), you get even more tradeoffs. In any case, YouTube needs money, and it is not that profitable (I think it started at a loss). As for searching, search is recommendation, unless you know the exact title of your video. For example, if you are looking for "how to install a graphics card", YouTube (or Google, or Bing) will make a small selection of the thousands of videos on the subject.
brundolf 5y ago
Not that it would ever make business sense, but ceasing click-based monetization in favor of Patreon-style monetization would do a pretty good job of getting rid of the bad stuff without getting rid of the good stuff. Most of the quality YouTubers I know of use Patreon already.
- ratww 5y ago
  Yes, but I'd say that's true for everything on the web. Advertisement is like a reverse Midas touch. Everything relying on it is on a race to the bottom.
  - DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
    > Advertisement is like a reverse Midas touch. Everything relying on it is on a race to the bottom. Not necessarily though - I can think of plenty of partially ad-supported media and publications that have retained their reputation for quality for decades or even centuries, for example, The Economist and the BBC World Service News channel. ...the thing is that the aforementioned don't generally run mass-market ads: the kinds of ads you see in the Economist or in-between World Service news segments is stuff like Rolex watches, Credit Suisse, and Chase Private Client Banking.
    - ratww 5y ago
      Yeah, those are the exceptions, though, and god knows how long they're gonna last. The effect of algorithmic advertisement and pay-per-impression/click is visible even on reputable newspapers: lots of them are resorting to clickbait because that's what generates pageviews.
    - mey 5y ago
      Are they the exception to the rule? It's not like The Economist is free.
    - BoiledCabbage 5y ago
      The two examples you chose, demonstrate the opposite of your point. One is a subscription service, meaning they aren't reliant on their advertising for most of the finances. The other is a quasi-govt entity, whose funding comes substantially from a tv license fee.
dv_dt 5y ago
Though one might also wonder if there is some source of artificial click views which could be employed by some channels.
bsedlm 5y ago
> incentive structures this. I'm pretty sure current incentives from an era of capitalist (based on industrial manufacture) are just not good at software and digital goods in general. However, the exclusive ownership paradigm is so ingrained in our civilization that it'll take a long time for humanity to even properly consider other possibilities.
akomtu 5y ago
It sounds like YouTube has become a petri dish (in a bad sense) for ideas. I wonder if at a high level, the growth and evolution of certain type of videos resembles fungi.
pkulak 5y ago
Pretty good take on all this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng
james-skemp 5y ago
Veritasium did a video about this recently, actually. I got the picture and didn't finish it, but it helped me realize how YouTube has pushed junk to me, despite trying to subscribe to quality channels. https://youtu.be/S2xHZPH5Sng https://youtu.be/S2xHZPH5Sng
- asddubs 5y ago
  i wish there was a crowdsourced browser addon like sponsorblock that just blocked any video with a thumbnail with a surprised face
overcast 5y ago
YouTube allowing creators to change Title and Thumbnails as many times as they want after a video has been uploaded, and providing realtime analytics after a change is what is driving this. They basically are constantly optimizing, until they find what sticks. The crap you describe obviously does very well. Veritasium does a great video on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng
systemvoltage 5y ago
People said TV was bad, let's move on YT. It got popular. Now, YT is bad. I am now starting to think People are bad.
- smolder 5y ago
  People are good and bad at different times and from different perspectives. So in a way, you're right, if badness is what you're focused on.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    Badness is what's on frontpage of YT with millions of views, so, yes, I am focused on badness of humans. Regarding perspectives - that's an interesting point. What if I am the one with poor taste?
    - smolder 5y ago
      My intended meaning was more that the people who make some annoying YT clickbait may be forces of good from the perspective of their families which they support, businesses they promote, old ladies they help across the street if and when they do so, and so on. If your taste is poor for thinking YT is promoting badness, then mine would be poor, too.
loudandskittish 5y ago
I'm wondering how long this will remain efficient, though. I'm now at the point where I just flat out refuse to click on any video with a clickbait title, or any video that is exactly 10 minutes long (give or take a few seconds). I can't be the only one.
bmitc 5y ago
It’s been clear for a long time now that the Internet connects not our abstract and reasoning brain but our primal brain. The fact that it was ever considered this utopian grid is laughable because it’s just catalyzing reversion.
dorkwood 5y ago
> A lot of the content was obviously fake, and much of what was not obviously fake was significantly exaggerated for obvious reasons, with the method of exaggeration varying according to the genre of content. I think when you see one of these obviously-fake video thumbnails and think to yourself "who in their right mind would click on that?" the answer is usually: children. Millions and millions of children.

by ve55 5y ago

download13 5y ago

Removing recommendation systems entirely, for now, would be a massive improvement, but that won't happen because none of us get input into that decision. The people who make it have only profit to consider, and the recommendation system gets them more profit.

GuB-42 5y ago
There is no way YouTube could work without a recommendation system. The volume is so huge you would get lost in the middle of videos of kids posting gameplay sessions for their friends. You can get good recommendation, but you have to let YouTube track you, if you are the kind with no account and block every tracker, you will get the stuff that is the most generic and gets the most clicks, because that's the default. It is good if you want to do a sociological study, but it is unlikely to match your tastes because the algorithm doesn't know your tastes. I guess that if you really don't like the YouTube recommendation system, you can add a few rules to your favorite ad blocker, the tag ids are not obfuscated.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > There is no way YouTube could work without a recommendation system. This doesn't make any sense. The recommendation system that exists right now will only tell you to keep watching more of things you already watch. YouTube already works without a recommendation system. Recommendations by YouTube are the source of... very little that I watch there. You watch things because you already know what you want and search for it, or because you got a recommendation from something other than the YouTube recommendations.
  - GuB-42 5y ago
    Recommendations are recommendations, whether it comes from YouTube of from outside of YouTube. Separating the host and recommendation engine has pros and cons, that are mostly both sides of the same coin. You are getting more of what you are interested in, but you get even less diversity. You are less likely to binge watch useless stuff, but it makes it harder to get more content about the topic you are interested in. Less platform independence, but worse integration. Things become even more complex when you consider monetization. Obviously, YouTube does that for money, but more money for YouTube also means more money for creators. And if you begin to take into account alternative revenue streams (Patreon, sponsors, ...), you get even more tradeoffs. In any case, YouTube needs money, and it is not that profitable (I think it started at a loss). As for searching, search is recommendation, unless you know the exact title of your video. For example, if you are looking for "how to install a graphics card", YouTube (or Google, or Bing) will make a small selection of the thousands of videos on the subject.

brundolf 5y ago

Not that it would ever make business sense, but ceasing click-based monetization in favor of Patreon-style monetization would do a pretty good job of getting rid of the bad stuff without getting rid of the good stuff. Most of the quality YouTubers I know of use Patreon already.

ratww 5y ago
Yes, but I'd say that's true for everything on the web. Advertisement is like a reverse Midas touch. Everything relying on it is on a race to the bottom.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
  > Advertisement is like a reverse Midas touch. Everything relying on it is on a race to the bottom. Not necessarily though - I can think of plenty of partially ad-supported media and publications that have retained their reputation for quality for decades or even centuries, for example, The Economist and the BBC World Service News channel. ...the thing is that the aforementioned don't generally run mass-market ads: the kinds of ads you see in the Economist or in-between World Service news segments is stuff like Rolex watches, Credit Suisse, and Chase Private Client Banking.
  - ratww 5y ago
    Yeah, those are the exceptions, though, and god knows how long they're gonna last. The effect of algorithmic advertisement and pay-per-impression/click is visible even on reputable newspapers: lots of them are resorting to clickbait because that's what generates pageviews.
  - mey 5y ago
    Are they the exception to the rule? It's not like The Economist is free.
  - BoiledCabbage 5y ago
    The two examples you chose, demonstrate the opposite of your point. One is a subscription service, meaning they aren't reliant on their advertising for most of the finances. The other is a quasi-govt entity, whose funding comes substantially from a tv license fee.

dv_dt 5y ago

Though one might also wonder if there is some source of artificial click views which could be employed by some channels.

bsedlm 5y ago

> incentive structures this. I'm pretty sure current incentives from an era of capitalist (based on industrial manufacture) are just not good at software and digital goods in general. However, the exclusive ownership paradigm is so ingrained in our civilization that it'll take a long time for humanity to even properly consider other possibilities.

akomtu 5y ago

It sounds like YouTube has become a petri dish (in a bad sense) for ideas. I wonder if at a high level, the growth and evolution of certain type of videos resembles fungi.

pkulak 5y ago

Pretty good take on all this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng

james-skemp 5y ago

Veritasium did a video about this recently, actually. I got the picture and didn't finish it, but it helped me realize how YouTube has pushed junk to me, despite trying to subscribe to quality channels. https://youtu.be/S2xHZPH5Sng https://youtu.be/S2xHZPH5Sng

asddubs 5y ago
i wish there was a crowdsourced browser addon like sponsorblock that just blocked any video with a thumbnail with a surprised face

overcast 5y ago

YouTube allowing creators to change Title and Thumbnails as many times as they want after a video has been uploaded, and providing realtime analytics after a change is what is driving this. They basically are constantly optimizing, until they find what sticks. The crap you describe obviously does very well. Veritasium does a great video on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng

systemvoltage 5y ago

People said TV was bad, let's move on YT. It got popular. Now, YT is bad. I am now starting to think People are bad.

smolder 5y ago
People are good and bad at different times and from different perspectives. So in a way, you're right, if badness is what you're focused on.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Badness is what's on frontpage of YT with millions of views, so, yes, I am focused on badness of humans. Regarding perspectives - that's an interesting point. What if I am the one with poor taste?
  - smolder 5y ago
    My intended meaning was more that the people who make some annoying YT clickbait may be forces of good from the perspective of their families which they support, businesses they promote, old ladies they help across the street if and when they do so, and so on. If your taste is poor for thinking YT is promoting badness, then mine would be poor, too.

loudandskittish 5y ago

I'm wondering how long this will remain efficient, though. I'm now at the point where I just flat out refuse to click on any video with a clickbait title, or any video that is exactly 10 minutes long (give or take a few seconds). I can't be the only one.

bmitc 5y ago

It’s been clear for a long time now that the Internet connects not our abstract and reasoning brain but our primal brain. The fact that it was ever considered this utopian grid is laughable because it’s just catalyzing reversion.

dorkwood 5y ago

> A lot of the content was obviously fake, and much of what was not obviously fake was significantly exaggerated for obvious reasons, with the method of exaggeration varying according to the genre of content. I think when you see one of these obviously-fake video thumbnails and think to yourself "who in their right mind would click on that?" the answer is usually: children. Millions and millions of children.