6 ms·

Yeah, I fear that some people will see massive dislike ratio on vaccination related videos and think "oh, yeah, vaccination is really unpopular. Maybe I should

Yeah, I fear that some people will see massive dislike ratio on vaccination related videos and think "oh, yeah, vaccination is really unpopular. Maybe I should be listening to what people are saying against it. I don't want to get singled out. No one is getting vaccinated" etc. It seems like it becomes a circle jerk, and a way to "protest", rather than it being an actual signal. Disclaimer: These views are entirely my own, and not of my employer.

benmw333 5y ago
I think my above question was just answered here. I think YouTube is more aligned with the cultural movement of "positive things only" and only with certain ideas, i.e. COVID vaccine. I think it is a smart business idea for them.
- deadmutex 5y ago
  > I think YouTube is more aligned with the cultural movement of "positive things only" and only with certain ideas, i.e. COVID vaccine. I don't think you can conclude that from the above. My point was that dislike ratios attacks basically abuse the feature that previously provided valuable signal to the user on whether the video was of good quality. Now, this removes the incentive for dislike ratio attacks to abuse this feature. Disclaimer: My views are my own, and not of my employer.
  - benmw333 5y ago
    It goes both ways - right? For Likes/Dislikes. Regardless, I think this is strictly a big business move - in response to perceived cultural movement.
0xDEEPFAC 5y ago
Yea, I agree, its dangerous for people to express their opinions especially if it changes or influences others. We should hide the dislike count so the mindless don't submit to "bad think"
- deadmutex 5y ago
  This post comes off as being sarcastic. Here is a question: are you OK with hate speech on social media? If yes, then I don't think we can agree on much. If no, then please re-read your statement and see how it applies to hate speech. My point: There's always a balance, and health misinformation is costing a lot of lives today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MczumO5PHXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MczumO5PHXg. Disclaimer: My views are my own, and not of my employer.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    >"Here is a question: are you OK with hate speech on social media? If yes, then I don't think we can agree on much." And now we circle back to the classic question, who determines what constitutes hate-speech and who is responsible for making the judgement? The kinds of people who end up as censors tend to be the most sensitive and the false-positive rate is very high. There is no shortage of partisan activists willing to indiscriminately label things as racist or hateful these days. Additionally, what constitutes misinformation that costs lives? I remember back when claiming sanitizing surfaces did not reduce the spread of COVID was misinformation and grounds for a ban on social media platforms. Turns out, sanitizing surfaces really doesn't slow Covid at all. So much of what we know to be 'true' is actually in-flux and subject to change as more time and research goes on. My point is, wanting to restrict hate-speech and misinformation is not a dangerous thing in and of itself, but it should be done with great caution and hesitancy because you run the risk of censoring true information and preventing people from expressing ideas that run against the orthodoxy of the censors. I hope that people don't view things as black and white as 'allow hate-speech, yes or no?'
    - deadmutex 5y ago
      > wanting to restrict hate-speech and misinformation is not a dangerous thing in and of itself, but it should be done with great caution and hesitancy Agree (This is my personal view, and not of my employers)
  - 0xDEEPFAC 5y ago
logicalmonster 5y ago
Is it a good thing that an average person is getting fewer and fewer ways to participate in the exchange of ideas? Has this ever worked well in history where less speech was enabled was actually progress? Is the future of humanity only that corporate-approved ideas and protests are allowed in the public square? Could this ever backfire in the future? An average person might get their speech silenced when they get some fact wrong. Does the mass media suffer that same fate when they get something wrong? What are the consequences of effectively creating unequal classes of people? Just a few random questions and thoughts that this line of thinking leads to, in my opinion.
- deadmutex 5y ago
  Discussing ideas based on reality is good. Things like hate speech, and deliberate misinformation is not. Disclaimer: My views are my own, and not of my employer.
  - logicalmonster 5y ago
    And then we come back to the age old question of who decides what is "hate speech", "deliberate misinformation", and other doubleplusungood topics? I think we can do better than letting free human discourse be controlled by a handful of megacorps and Susan Wojcicki. Disclaimer: I don't need to repeat an annoying disclaimer in every post.
    - deadmutex 5y ago
      > I think we can do better I would be open to hearing better ideas, please elaborate.
      - logicalmonster 5y ago
        In this thread, a number of posts seem to be some people hyperventilating at the thought of "hate speech" and "misinformation" being allowed on the Internet. Short of building a time machine and going back and heeding Senator McCarthy's warning, the solutions are very simple in my opinion. 1) Really teach people that words have no power over you unless you let them. > Sticks and stones may break my bones > But words shall never hurt me. Internalize this and voila: any "hate speech" that exists is de facto powerless to harm you. Society has unfortunately taken the opposite approach and acts as if the existence of hate is harmful by itself and magnifies it to an extreme. 2) Teach people that everything you read online should be considered fake news until you verify it. Voila. You're immune to fake news, medical misinformation, authoritarian government propaganda, and anything else that's not real. Society has unfortunately taken the opposite approach and wants to have the political establishment "fact check" and decide what's true for you.

benmw333 5y ago

I think my above question was just answered here. I think YouTube is more aligned with the cultural movement of "positive things only" and only with certain ideas, i.e. COVID vaccine. I think it is a smart business idea for them.

deadmutex 5y ago
> I think YouTube is more aligned with the cultural movement of "positive things only" and only with certain ideas, i.e. COVID vaccine. I don't think you can conclude that from the above. My point was that dislike ratios attacks basically abuse the feature that previously provided valuable signal to the user on whether the video was of good quality. Now, this removes the incentive for dislike ratio attacks to abuse this feature. Disclaimer: My views are my own, and not of my employer.
- benmw333 5y ago
  It goes both ways - right? For Likes/Dislikes. Regardless, I think this is strictly a big business move - in response to perceived cultural movement.

0xDEEPFAC 5y ago

Yea, I agree, its dangerous for people to express their opinions especially if it changes or influences others. We should hide the dislike count so the mindless don't submit to "bad think"

deadmutex 5y ago
This post comes off as being sarcastic. Here is a question: are you OK with hate speech on social media? If yes, then I don't think we can agree on much. If no, then please re-read your statement and see how it applies to hate speech. My point: There's always a balance, and health misinformation is costing a lot of lives today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MczumO5PHXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MczumO5PHXg. Disclaimer: My views are my own, and not of my employer.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"Here is a question: are you OK with hate speech on social media? If yes, then I don't think we can agree on much." And now we circle back to the classic question, who determines what constitutes hate-speech and who is responsible for making the judgement? The kinds of people who end up as censors tend to be the most sensitive and the false-positive rate is very high. There is no shortage of partisan activists willing to indiscriminately label things as racist or hateful these days. Additionally, what constitutes misinformation that costs lives? I remember back when claiming sanitizing surfaces did not reduce the spread of COVID was misinformation and grounds for a ban on social media platforms. Turns out, sanitizing surfaces really doesn't slow Covid at all. So much of what we know to be 'true' is actually in-flux and subject to change as more time and research goes on. My point is, wanting to restrict hate-speech and misinformation is not a dangerous thing in and of itself, but it should be done with great caution and hesitancy because you run the risk of censoring true information and preventing people from expressing ideas that run against the orthodoxy of the censors. I hope that people don't view things as black and white as 'allow hate-speech, yes or no?'
  - deadmutex 5y ago
    > wanting to restrict hate-speech and misinformation is not a dangerous thing in and of itself, but it should be done with great caution and hesitancy Agree (This is my personal view, and not of my employers)
- 0xDEEPFAC 5y ago

logicalmonster 5y ago

Is it a good thing that an average person is getting fewer and fewer ways to participate in the exchange of ideas? Has this ever worked well in history where less speech was enabled was actually progress? Is the future of humanity only that corporate-approved ideas and protests are allowed in the public square? Could this ever backfire in the future? An average person might get their speech silenced when they get some fact wrong. Does the mass media suffer that same fate when they get something wrong? What are the consequences of effectively creating unequal classes of people? Just a few random questions and thoughts that this line of thinking leads to, in my opinion.

deadmutex 5y ago
Discussing ideas based on reality is good. Things like hate speech, and deliberate misinformation is not. Disclaimer: My views are my own, and not of my employer.
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  And then we come back to the age old question of who decides what is "hate speech", "deliberate misinformation", and other doubleplusungood topics? I think we can do better than letting free human discourse be controlled by a handful of megacorps and Susan Wojcicki. Disclaimer: I don't need to repeat an annoying disclaimer in every post.
  - deadmutex 5y ago
    > I think we can do better I would be open to hearing better ideas, please elaborate.
    - logicalmonster 5y ago
      In this thread, a number of posts seem to be some people hyperventilating at the thought of "hate speech" and "misinformation" being allowed on the Internet. Short of building a time machine and going back and heeding Senator McCarthy's warning, the solutions are very simple in my opinion. 1) Really teach people that words have no power over you unless you let them. > Sticks and stones may break my bones > But words shall never hurt me. Internalize this and voila: any "hate speech" that exists is de facto powerless to harm you. Society has unfortunately taken the opposite approach and acts as if the existence of hate is harmful by itself and magnifies it to an extreme. 2) Teach people that everything you read online should be considered fake news until you verify it. Voila. You're immune to fake news, medical misinformation, authoritarian government propaganda, and anything else that's not real. Society has unfortunately taken the opposite approach and wants to have the political establishment "fact check" and decide what's true for you.