4 ms·

By referring to the act of disliking the video as an "attack", they are framing this change as one which protects users, when in fact, only a small minority pos

by prvc 5y ago

By referring to the act of disliking the video as an "attack", they are framing this change as one which protects users, when in fact, only a small minority post videos, and a smaller portion among them are bothered by dislikes. In fact, the change is user-hostile, removing one channel for users to see whether a video is of low quality (inaccurate description, containing false information, etc.), and improving advertiser metrics artificially (this, by their own description).

m0llusk 5y ago
That isn't what they said at all. They are talking about actual attacks where a group of people share their objections to a video and encourage everyone to click on dislike. Do you really think that this kind of group objection should be sponsored and enabled?
- ernst_10 5y ago
  So criticism and encouraging people to consider the criticism? What is wrong with that?
  - arrrg 5y ago
    Clicking a dislike button is not, in any sense of the word, criticism.
    - ernst_10 5y ago
      It is in the english language. > the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes. Regardless the parent was talking about someone sharing more detailed criticism.
  - cole-k 5y ago
    The hope with youtube videos is that the likes/dislikes represent a random sampling from the ratings of everyone who would watch the video. A brigade is purposefully adding to the sample ratings from only one side. So from an objective standpoint it makes the like/dislike ratio lower quality. But from a less objective standpoint, it's just rude. Even if the rankings are purely cosmetic, why go out of your way to leave a dislike on one person's video if you wouldn't interact with it otherwise?
    - ernst_10 5y ago
      There is always bias in the userbase, people usually watch content on their side of the political agenda for example. How do you know the so-called "brigade" isn't actually bringing things closer to public opinion? Also are we talking about global opinion? A lot of people outside of the western world aren't as big fans of LGBT for example, so if we want to make things more objective those videos should have even more downvotes and hateful messages. And if we're being consistent with what google currently does, these videos should be banned sometimes for hurting others (ex. religious) feelings. People are ok with downvotes and banning, but only if it panders to their current subjective moral fashions.
      - cole-k 5y ago
        > There is always bias in the userbase, people usually watch content on their side of the political agenda for example. I agree, but as a user I am used to assuming a baseline of support for a video coming from the channel's subscribers. So even if the pie-in-the-sky random sampling is biased, I can usually account for that. What I would like to be able to assume is that likes and dislikes come from the "usual" traffic a video receives. > Also are we talking about global opinion? No. I think it can be assumed (like you said) that videos typically receive views from certain people. My point is more that brigades disrupt the helpfulness of ratings for viewers like myself. I think we should not offend the sensibilities of the homophobes in this world (lmao) by asking them to watch LGBT-friendly videos. Conversely, I think said homophobes should refrain from brigading such a video just because they dislike LGBT people. I also will reiterate my claim that it is rude for the hypothetical homophobe to exercise targeted downvotes on LGBT videos. As for myself, I'm not all too pleased with downvotes being straight up removed from Google (edit: YT). But acting like brigades are constructive and normal use of the platform is silly to me. Edit: clarified some points
- cruano 5y ago
  The same happens with all those like-for-like groups instead it's the other direction and they don't bat an eye there
- t-writescode 5y ago
  Do you think the only solution for that is to just delete the button, rather than do analysis on the downvoters and undo brigaded downvotes? Isn't Google literally an AI company, and wouldn't this be entirely in their wheelhouse to work on?
- Causality1 5y ago
  Absolutely. Getting ratio'd is one of the few ways users have to express displeasure. They took away video replies, comments are often disabled, but they can't pretend everyone likes their video. At least they couldn't until now. That Verge PC build that would destroy your parts if you followed it? That horrible soulless YouTube Rewind? Logan Paul's "sorry I exploited suicide victims for views" video? Dislikes are a force for good. I can count the videos I've seen unfairly disliked on one hand.
- remram 5y ago
  But this is still possible. And it will still affect the ranking of the video, keeping it from being recommended. They are keeping all the harmful implications and removing the only other use case, which is the quality signal to potential viewers (noisy as it is).
- prvc 5y ago
  >They are talking about actual attacks This is a fallacy known as "begging the question".
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
Yep... but the most disliked videos are certain political ones, that youtube supports, and well... youtube rewind.
- loosescrews 5y ago
  I think they still might be upset about that.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
emmelaich 5y ago
You're right about the "attack" thing, but it would be no loss to remove the "Dislike" entirely. I've seen random harmless videos (bit of classical music for instance) with many dislikes. Same with Facebook btw. They should never have added anything over a mere "Like".
- brushfoot 5y ago
  YouTube complicated things by having the dislike button double as a literal "I don't like this" and an "I don't want to be recommended videos like this in the future." When you dislike a video, it stamps it with a public seal of disapproval, even if you're just trying to avoid a recommended piece of music on YouTube Music. It's a clunky, confusing UX that gave rise to the inevitable highly upvoted "Who in the world would dislike this?" threads on so many popular videos.

by prvc 5y ago

m0llusk 5y ago

That isn't what they said at all. They are talking about actual attacks where a group of people share their objections to a video and encourage everyone to click on dislike. Do you really think that this kind of group objection should be sponsored and enabled?

ernst_10 5y ago
So criticism and encouraging people to consider the criticism? What is wrong with that?
- arrrg 5y ago
  Clicking a dislike button is not, in any sense of the word, criticism.
  - ernst_10 5y ago
    It is in the english language. > the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes. Regardless the parent was talking about someone sharing more detailed criticism.
- cole-k 5y ago
  The hope with youtube videos is that the likes/dislikes represent a random sampling from the ratings of everyone who would watch the video. A brigade is purposefully adding to the sample ratings from only one side. So from an objective standpoint it makes the like/dislike ratio lower quality. But from a less objective standpoint, it's just rude. Even if the rankings are purely cosmetic, why go out of your way to leave a dislike on one person's video if you wouldn't interact with it otherwise?
  - ernst_10 5y ago
    There is always bias in the userbase, people usually watch content on their side of the political agenda for example. How do you know the so-called "brigade" isn't actually bringing things closer to public opinion? Also are we talking about global opinion? A lot of people outside of the western world aren't as big fans of LGBT for example, so if we want to make things more objective those videos should have even more downvotes and hateful messages. And if we're being consistent with what google currently does, these videos should be banned sometimes for hurting others (ex. religious) feelings. People are ok with downvotes and banning, but only if it panders to their current subjective moral fashions.
    - cole-k 5y ago
      > There is always bias in the userbase, people usually watch content on their side of the political agenda for example. I agree, but as a user I am used to assuming a baseline of support for a video coming from the channel's subscribers. So even if the pie-in-the-sky random sampling is biased, I can usually account for that. What I would like to be able to assume is that likes and dislikes come from the "usual" traffic a video receives. > Also are we talking about global opinion? No. I think it can be assumed (like you said) that videos typically receive views from certain people. My point is more that brigades disrupt the helpfulness of ratings for viewers like myself. I think we should not offend the sensibilities of the homophobes in this world (lmao) by asking them to watch LGBT-friendly videos. Conversely, I think said homophobes should refrain from brigading such a video just because they dislike LGBT people. I also will reiterate my claim that it is rude for the hypothetical homophobe to exercise targeted downvotes on LGBT videos. As for myself, I'm not all too pleased with downvotes being straight up removed from Google (edit: YT). But acting like brigades are constructive and normal use of the platform is silly to me. Edit: clarified some points
cruano 5y ago
The same happens with all those like-for-like groups instead it's the other direction and they don't bat an eye there
t-writescode 5y ago
Do you think the only solution for that is to just delete the button, rather than do analysis on the downvoters and undo brigaded downvotes? Isn't Google literally an AI company, and wouldn't this be entirely in their wheelhouse to work on?
Causality1 5y ago
Absolutely. Getting ratio'd is one of the few ways users have to express displeasure. They took away video replies, comments are often disabled, but they can't pretend everyone likes their video. At least they couldn't until now. That Verge PC build that would destroy your parts if you followed it? That horrible soulless YouTube Rewind? Logan Paul's "sorry I exploited suicide victims for views" video? Dislikes are a force for good. I can count the videos I've seen unfairly disliked on one hand.
remram 5y ago
But this is still possible. And it will still affect the ranking of the video, keeping it from being recommended. They are keeping all the harmful implications and removing the only other use case, which is the quality signal to potential viewers (noisy as it is).
prvc 5y ago
>They are talking about actual attacks This is a fallacy known as "begging the question".

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

Yep... but the most disliked videos are certain political ones, that youtube supports, and well... youtube rewind.

loosescrews 5y ago
I think they still might be upset about that.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

emmelaich 5y ago

You're right about the "attack" thing, but it would be no loss to remove the "Dislike" entirely. I've seen random harmless videos (bit of classical music for instance) with many dislikes. Same with Facebook btw. They should never have added anything over a mere "Like".

brushfoot 5y ago
YouTube complicated things by having the dislike button double as a literal "I don't like this" and an "I don't want to be recommended videos like this in the future." When you dislike a video, it stamps it with a public seal of disapproval, even if you're just trying to avoid a recommended piece of music on YouTube Music. It's a clunky, confusing UX that gave rise to the inevitable highly upvoted "Who in the world would dislike this?" threads on so many popular videos.