8 ms·

This still seems like a huge disconnect to what people use youtube for vs. what google thinks it should be used for. Google wants youtube to be all network and

This still seems like a huge disconnect to what people use youtube for vs. what google thinks it should be used for. Google wants youtube to be all network and brands making content. ie. a future version of what TV is now. What actual people want is creator made videos(diy/review/podcast videos and everything else that make youtube wonderful). This disconnect has been happening since google bought youtube and this recent change only reflects google wanting to hide backlash/or dislike from who it sees should rightfully be on youtube, brands/networks/corporations.

MrMember 5y ago
You could see that with how YouTube Rewind evolved over the years. It started out highlighting popular videos from original YouTube creators and at some point became Jimmy Kimmel doing Fortnite dances.
ahahahahah 5y ago
It sounds like you read the headline and came to post your already held views on Google and Youtube hoping that it would be relevant. From the article: > We’ve also heard directly from smaller creators, and those just getting started with their YouTube channel, that they are unfairly targeted by dislike attacks. Our experiment data confirmed that this behavior does occur at a higher proportion on smaller channels.
- pranau 5y ago
  Seems like a story they spun with cherry-picked data to justify the removal of the dislike count.
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  If that was truly their primary concern, why wouldn't they limit the scope of the change to smaller creators? Could it be that they were looking for a post-hoc justification for a desired policy change?
  - jedimastert 5y ago
    Would you trust YT to define what a "small creator" is? It opens the door to other policies being applied only to "small creators" as well, and I don't personally like that thought
    - weberer 5y ago
      They already do that. They don't pay creators at all who have less than 1000 subscribers and 4000 watch hours in the past year.
    - ridaj 5y ago
      You also cannot have comments on videos that feature or target children
      - jedimastert 5y ago
        That's a response to a legal requirement
    - scoopertrooper 5y ago
      They already apply different rules to small creators. For instance, you must have 1000 subscribers and 4000 hours of watch time per a year in order to monetise videos.
      - jedimastert 5y ago
        That's not even close to what "small creator" would mean on YT
        scoopertrooper 5y ago
        My point was that your slippery slope argument was a bit bonkers because YouTube already has a mechanism to impose varying rules on channels based on size.
- slingnow 5y ago
  It sounds like you're very much predisposed to believing that all press releases are 100% truthful -- and you would never consider that they might be intentionally misleading.
- bavila 5y ago
  Couldn't smaller channels be getting hit by more dislikes because videos produced by smaller channels are actually just plain bad? People who are just getting started on YouTube tend to have poor production quality and editing skills compared to established channels. That might have been acceptable in YouTube's early days when there were no standards, but now we're at a point where we've all seen thousands of videos on YouTube, and we all collectively expect high quality content. Seems quite natural that smaller channels that are just getting started by people who are still learning will be disliked more often than large channels. Hardly a valid reason to eliminate the dislike button.
jeffbee 5y ago
It seems to me like the disconnect is between your baseless imaginary model of how youtube users behave and the objective analysis of the only party holding enough data to make a sound conclusion.
- csee 5y ago
  > only party holding enough data Correct. > objective analysis Assumption. For all we know, they could be making up bullshit to cover up the real reason; e.g. Disney/Marvel (a source of revenue) or the White House (with the threat of potential regulations or maybe just the political bias of YT staff) or YouTube themselves (YouTube Rewind) are very unhappy that their videos are so unpopular. Since we can't access their data, we will never know one way or the other. We either have to trust their corporate PR, as you seem to have done, or analyze their possible motives for making a decision that is seemingly user-hostile.
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    "I don't know, so I will invent unfounded theories that can't be falsified" is a frankly stupid way to go through life.
    - csee 5y ago
      You've framed a plausible hypothesis - which is the best any of us can do given a complete absence of any data - as "invent[ing] unfounded theories that can't be falsified". That's effective rhetoric, but it isn't really an argument. Instead, "I uncritically accept corporate PR as objective analysis" is what I consider to be a stupid way to go through life. Maybe your priors include "corporations always tell the truth", but mine don't. That obviously doesn't mean we should accept some alternative conspiracy theory X as the truth, but it does mean we should be skeptical and open minded about other explanations, especially given the context in this particular case of: (i) zero supporting data provided by YT, (ii) a very plausible set of alternative explanations that would be political suicide for YT to publicly state, (iii) the apparent anecdotal user-hostility of this decision.
    - 5y ago
native_samples 5y ago
It's all about Wojcicki. The fact she runs YouTube never ceases to amaze me given that she ran Google Video, which failed largely because she was obsessed with 'professional' content and bet against user generated content. That bet was wrong to such a huge extent she was reduced to recommending Google buy her only competitor. Somehow, despite this failure as an executive - a failure of the kind that got Vic Gundotra fired - she has not only not been fired but ended up running the site that beat her, where she has spent the last half decade trying to turn it back into Google Video.
- subsubzero 5y ago
  100% agree, the only reason Wojcicki is still there is she is the sister of founder Sergey Brin's ex-wife and that family supplied the "garage" that started google.
adminscoffee 5y ago
youtube will join the names of yahoo, myspace and aol. we are seeing their decay. the money we see as growth is not going to last long.
newsclues 5y ago
Business vs consumers.
sergiotapia 5y ago
Abandon youtube, use Odysee and support web3 already. It's time to go back to a distributed web. https://odysee.com/ https://odysee.com/
- Minor49er 5y ago
  Odysee seems okay, but you need LBRY credits in order to do pretty much anything
- RNCTX 5y ago
  No one is going to use crypto for day to day anything, ever.
CapitalistCartr 5y ago
I have a small child (14.8 kg) so I know a lot more about children's shows on Youtube than I want to. People use Youtube to publish lots of videos aimed at children. Some of which is inappropriate, BTW; keep an eye on what your kid is seeing. In 2018 some TV executives with Disney ties founded Moonbug Entertainment, which proceeded to swallow up lots of the more popular channels. Sound familiar? Such as Little Baby Bum, Cocomelon and Blippi, the last two of which were $120 million. All excellent programming. This seems to be the way of the World. My son also loves Vlad and Niki. They make cute, silly videos that gross millions of US dollars per month. There is serious money involved in this now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonbug_Entertainment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonbug_Entertainment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_and_Niki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_and_Niki
- devortel 5y ago
  Did you describe your child using weight instead of age?
  - aftbit 5y ago
    Yeah, they said small not young.
  - CapitalistCartr 5y ago
    Yup.
    - dmingod666 5y ago
      This is the most weirdest way I have seen someone describe a 3 year old..

MrMember 5y ago

You could see that with how YouTube Rewind evolved over the years. It started out highlighting popular videos from original YouTube creators and at some point became Jimmy Kimmel doing Fortnite dances.

ahahahahah 5y ago

It sounds like you read the headline and came to post your already held views on Google and Youtube hoping that it would be relevant. From the article: > We’ve also heard directly from smaller creators, and those just getting started with their YouTube channel, that they are unfairly targeted by dislike attacks. Our experiment data confirmed that this behavior does occur at a higher proportion on smaller channels.

pranau 5y ago
Seems like a story they spun with cherry-picked data to justify the removal of the dislike count.
scoopertrooper 5y ago
If that was truly their primary concern, why wouldn't they limit the scope of the change to smaller creators? Could it be that they were looking for a post-hoc justification for a desired policy change?
- jedimastert 5y ago
  Would you trust YT to define what a "small creator" is? It opens the door to other policies being applied only to "small creators" as well, and I don't personally like that thought
  - weberer 5y ago
    They already do that. They don't pay creators at all who have less than 1000 subscribers and 4000 watch hours in the past year.
  - ridaj 5y ago
    You also cannot have comments on videos that feature or target children
    - jedimastert 5y ago
      That's a response to a legal requirement
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago
    They already apply different rules to small creators. For instance, you must have 1000 subscribers and 4000 hours of watch time per a year in order to monetise videos.
    - jedimastert 5y ago
      That's not even close to what "small creator" would mean on YT
      - scoopertrooper 5y ago
        My point was that your slippery slope argument was a bit bonkers because YouTube already has a mechanism to impose varying rules on channels based on size.
slingnow 5y ago
It sounds like you're very much predisposed to believing that all press releases are 100% truthful -- and you would never consider that they might be intentionally misleading.
bavila 5y ago
Couldn't smaller channels be getting hit by more dislikes because videos produced by smaller channels are actually just plain bad? People who are just getting started on YouTube tend to have poor production quality and editing skills compared to established channels. That might have been acceptable in YouTube's early days when there were no standards, but now we're at a point where we've all seen thousands of videos on YouTube, and we all collectively expect high quality content. Seems quite natural that smaller channels that are just getting started by people who are still learning will be disliked more often than large channels. Hardly a valid reason to eliminate the dislike button.

jeffbee 5y ago

It seems to me like the disconnect is between your baseless imaginary model of how youtube users behave and the objective analysis of the only party holding enough data to make a sound conclusion.

csee 5y ago
> only party holding enough data Correct. > objective analysis Assumption. For all we know, they could be making up bullshit to cover up the real reason; e.g. Disney/Marvel (a source of revenue) or the White House (with the threat of potential regulations or maybe just the political bias of YT staff) or YouTube themselves (YouTube Rewind) are very unhappy that their videos are so unpopular. Since we can't access their data, we will never know one way or the other. We either have to trust their corporate PR, as you seem to have done, or analyze their possible motives for making a decision that is seemingly user-hostile.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  "I don't know, so I will invent unfounded theories that can't be falsified" is a frankly stupid way to go through life.
  - csee 5y ago
    You've framed a plausible hypothesis - which is the best any of us can do given a complete absence of any data - as "invent[ing] unfounded theories that can't be falsified". That's effective rhetoric, but it isn't really an argument. Instead, "I uncritically accept corporate PR as objective analysis" is what I consider to be a stupid way to go through life. Maybe your priors include "corporations always tell the truth", but mine don't. That obviously doesn't mean we should accept some alternative conspiracy theory X as the truth, but it does mean we should be skeptical and open minded about other explanations, especially given the context in this particular case of: (i) zero supporting data provided by YT, (ii) a very plausible set of alternative explanations that would be political suicide for YT to publicly state, (iii) the apparent anecdotal user-hostility of this decision.
  - 5y ago

native_samples 5y ago

It's all about Wojcicki. The fact she runs YouTube never ceases to amaze me given that she ran Google Video, which failed largely because she was obsessed with 'professional' content and bet against user generated content. That bet was wrong to such a huge extent she was reduced to recommending Google buy her only competitor. Somehow, despite this failure as an executive - a failure of the kind that got Vic Gundotra fired - she has not only not been fired but ended up running the site that beat her, where she has spent the last half decade trying to turn it back into Google Video.

subsubzero 5y ago
100% agree, the only reason Wojcicki is still there is she is the sister of founder Sergey Brin's ex-wife and that family supplied the "garage" that started google.

adminscoffee 5y ago

youtube will join the names of yahoo, myspace and aol. we are seeing their decay. the money we see as growth is not going to last long.

newsclues 5y ago

Business vs consumers.

sergiotapia 5y ago

Abandon youtube, use Odysee and support web3 already. It's time to go back to a distributed web. https://odysee.com/ https://odysee.com/

Minor49er 5y ago
Odysee seems okay, but you need LBRY credits in order to do pretty much anything
RNCTX 5y ago
No one is going to use crypto for day to day anything, ever.

CapitalistCartr 5y ago

I have a small child (14.8 kg) so I know a lot more about children's shows on Youtube than I want to. People use Youtube to publish lots of videos aimed at children. Some of which is inappropriate, BTW; keep an eye on what your kid is seeing. In 2018 some TV executives with Disney ties founded Moonbug Entertainment, which proceeded to swallow up lots of the more popular channels. Sound familiar? Such as Little Baby Bum, Cocomelon and Blippi, the last two of which were $120 million. All excellent programming. This seems to be the way of the World. My son also loves Vlad and Niki. They make cute, silly videos that gross millions of US dollars per month. There is serious money involved in this now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonbug_Entertainment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonbug_Entertainment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_and_Niki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_and_Niki

devortel 5y ago
Did you describe your child using weight instead of age?
- aftbit 5y ago
  Yeah, they said small not young.
- CapitalistCartr 5y ago
  Yup.
  - dmingod666 5y ago
    This is the most weirdest way I have seen someone describe a 3 year old..