5 ms·

Youtube Shorts (TicToc competitor) is pure evil. If I accidentally click on it I can find myself two hours later after watching hundred videos I can't even reme

• gremloni 5y ago
  > blatantly and prominently push their political agenda Only if you consider egalitarianism and diversity as political issues. To most of society they are universal values so it’s not contentious.
  • depressedpanda 5y ago
    Has it ever occurred to you that a person might be for egalitarian values and diversity without approving of the particular flavor of it being pushed by some factions? It's not black and white.
  • ralusek 5y ago
    Well, they are political issues, because they don't exist in a vacuum and nuance exists. For example, what do you mean by egalitarianism? Equality under the law? Well, Republicans/Liberals tend to agree with equality under the law, whereas Leftists and Gender/Racial Identitarians don't. California recently tried to repeal 1960s civil rights legislation preventing discrimination by race, precisely because they'd like to discriminate on the basis of race...because to them, egalitarianism doesn't mean equality under the law, but rather that the law should have weighted parameters necessary to transform societal outcomes into equal measures by arbitrary population, irrespective of those population inputs. Mind you, these are the people claiming to be egalitarian. As Ibram X. Kendi says himself, "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." To many (most?) people, that isn't egalitarianism...so it's political. It's clearly not a universal value when it's actually a bundle of competing values claiming the same word. What about diversity? What, that diversity is just good? Is that the point? Because what exactly do you mean? What if there was a group of liberal people who had democratically made their society in accordance with what they felt aligned with liberalism, and were suddenly being told that a major influx of right wing evangelical Christians were to be allowed to come into their society (and be given exactly the same voting rights as them)? What about a group of frat bros? Is this the kind of diversity you mean? You just accept that diversity is indiscriminately a net positive? What exactly is the mechanisms that makes that be the case? Surely it matters what the cultures are that are being made to coexist, what degree to which they have common ground, what degree to which their respective strengths cover for their respective weaknesses, the rate at which the cultures can tolerate the encroachment of the other while still remaining cooperative rather than hostile, the degree to which each culture has its elements preserved independently of the product of the two cultures interacting, and the degree to which the cultures are encouraged to and are actively assimilating. I mean, this is just scratching the surface. There are many factors that determine whether or not diversity is actually a good thing, and it often comes down to magnitude and rates, which are seemingly unwelcome from that sort of conversation. And then there is the (now tired) distinction between superficial diversity and diversity of thought. There is the (racist) notion that diversity of skin color will result in diversity of thought, proposed by exactly the sort of people who actually detest diversity of thought, and just want to see different colored faces in the crowd. Again, this is just scratching the surface of this conversation. So to say "it's not contentious" is pretty ridiculous, because these are completely loaded terms that mean completely different things to completely different people who ultimately have completely different goals for society. They're not universal values.
    • gremloni 5y ago
      Diversity for these purposes is biologically defined. Different race, different sex are pretty much it. A difference in ideology within the same race or sex doesn’t doesn’t count as diverse as I’m using it.
      • ralusek 5y ago
        Ok, so, diversity of gender and race is just good, period? Do you mean that people should be represented by race and gender in accordance with their population makeup? i.e. 13% of doctors should be black, and 50% of nurses should be male? At what cost, and what makes you think that would be a good thing? For one, Indian immigrants in the US disproportionately enter medicine, as do other Asians, in total constituting 17% of doctors. This is despite Asians constituting 6% of the population. 5% of doctors are black, despite constituting 13% of the population. In accordance with most advocating diversity for the sake of diversity, the reason for the disparity is assumed post hoc to have been due to discrimination...but why? It's as if the inputs have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the outcomes. In order to seek population parity, that would mean arbitrarily capping the number of Asian doctors, and arbitrarily pulling black doctors from a pool of applicants that literally doesn't exist. Rather than a deontological approach, of perhaps simply ensuring that the hiring process is as blind and devoid of bias as possible, diversity advocates are instead interested in diversity for the sake of diversity. Again, this is political beyond just "being a good person" or not.
        • gremloni 5y ago
          Yes it’s just good for it’s own sake. The aim has to be the mitigation of problems that will arise from integrated living like that.
          • ralusek 5y ago
            This is fucking stupid.
            • 5y ago
  • raxxorrax 5y ago
    Having a universal opinion suggested to you is not diversity. Egalitarianism is probably the opposite of their algorithmic suggestions too. But if that is the case, you should remove voting completely.
  • colordrops 5y ago
    Wait are you saying YouTube's political agenda is egalitarianism and diveristy? Amazing.
• unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >they blatantly and prominently push their political agenda What is their political agenda?
  • willis936 5y ago
    Money good. More of a religion, really.
  • colordrops 5y ago
    the agenda of the politicians they are in bed width to get the laws and subsidies that support their business. In the case of SV, the politics of the DNC, which isn't really any better or worse than the RNC, but has it's own logo, theme, and set of shiboleths.
• netheril96 5y ago
  Not any different from TikTok original.
• causi 5y ago
  I find the UX for Youtube Shorts to be so horrible I don't watch more than one video a session. It doesn't support landscape, and if you make the mistake of watching it to the end it starts over but with a darkened screen, forcing you to hit Back twice to get out of it. Who the hell watches a one minute video and then goes "gee, I really want to hear just the audio from that over again right now"?
  • nirui 5y ago
    Of course it's horrible. It's a cheap copy of a Chinese app which itself is designed horribly. YouTube added the feature out of pure panic instead of try to create something better, the poor result is expectable.
    • noahtallen 5y ago
      I mean, to be slightly pedantic, TicTok is not a horrible design. It is a genius design with a horrible purpose. It’s genius because it’s extremely successful at its core purpose: driving engagement metrics for ad revenue. In terms of raw engagement, an endless stream of videos injected into your brain is way better than something like YouTube, where you’re normally doing some “heavy lifting” to curate your own content via search or subscriptions. TikTok is probably the best implementation (so far) of an addicting content consumption platform. By “best,” I mean it has the best engagement metrics.
  • bluecatswim 5y ago
    Youtube Shorts is just a frontend, you can watch those videos with the same UI as regular youtube by changing the url from youtube.com/shorts/xyz to youtube.com/watch?v=xyz.
• sillysaurusx 5y ago
  Shorts are awesome.
  • drdeca 5y ago
    the videos may be decent, and I do kind of appreciate there being a part for only rather short videos, but the UI is terrible. If you want to write a comment on one, it keeps playing the audio on loop. Who's idea was that? It's a terrible idea. Did they not do any user testing on it? Or is it in order to artificially inflate the viewcount numbers?
  • Dma54rhs 5y ago
    But they are just tiktok content farms. Which is kinda ironic since its a Googles product.
• peakaboo 5y ago
  Clearly you don't know about actual evil people in the world, and what they do from their high position in global companies or governments. It's always been like they I think. Good people can't imagine just how evil people can be because it's so far from their own reality.
  • colordrops 5y ago
    You don't even have to move to far up or around the social ladder/network to run into these people. They aren't that far. It's just that they might as well be a light year away if you never pierce your social bubble.
• propogandist 5y ago
  >I don't think there is deep evil thinking behind dislike change this isn't a small change, it's a major platform decision that impacts user experience, usability and engagement -- it's also received strong criticism from the community including from the original founder of Youtube [1] (see description), but they're pushing it through anyway You're being too naïve about the corporate agendas behind this change. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNQXAC9IVRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNQXAC9IVRw
  • vl 5y ago
    I worked at Google and other big corps. Generally public attributes way deeper thinking process than actually happens when decisions are done. For YT as business it doesn't actually matter if dislike counter is visible or not: recommendation engine ML works on what people actually watch, like/dislike signal is secondary at best.
    • colordrops 5y ago
      It doesn't have to be deep to be evil.