3 ms·

They care because none of this seemed to matter until the White House and then the big media, who is being tagged as authoritative despite getting a lot wrong,

They care because none of this seemed to matter until the White House and then the big media, who is being tagged as authoritative despite getting a lot wrong, were ratioed consistently. People asked why disliking POTUS matters now, when it didn't before. People asked why big media gets to fact check everyone, despite obvious, daily bias and error, and dislikes are hidden for them and this helps everyone how exactly? People noticed some creators are widely disliked consistently, yet enjoy consistent promotion. They noticed money seems to matter. Creators who generate many ratioed videos are different from those who don't, or who have a mix of some kind too. All of these were brought up in discussion, brought to me by normies basically unable to buy into the, "you do not need that info because..." line they were given. And now that they are talking about it, topic of interest, they are wondering about other things, like why their Facebook keeps removing what they thought were private exchanges... Your bomb shell is watching people lose trust and see less value in all of this than was true a year ago.

caconym_ 5y ago
I don't think videos on politicized topics getting "ratioed" is a very good signal of anything in today's political climate. Many, many users are willing to downvote content featuring people and/or organizations they've been told are their enemies, without engaging with the content at all. In fact, this sort of thing is IMO one of the best arguments for removing downvote counts. Beyond that, I frankly don't think people should have trust in "platforms" telling them what to think, so if this change wakes up some of the "sheeple" I can only see that as a good thing. I certainly think that taking away a tool that allows people to trivially express their shallow hatred of a thing can only improve the state of discourse and critical thought in society.
- ddingus 5y ago
  This is all trying to tell people what to think! Pages of discussion on how data should be interpreted. All the while ignoring the big players who did not like the fact that they are widely disliked. As for taking away a tool... POTUS has a very low approval rating. The dislikes follow, as they should. That same POTUS getting after long overdue policy with majority public support would very likely see a different outcome. People disliking big media and government sell jobs? SHOCKER! Of course they did, and of course it leads to questions which, of course led to eliminating the source of those questions. Finally, "I don't think people should..." Full stop. We need to realize those other people have agency and work from there.

caconym_ 5y ago

I don't think videos on politicized topics getting "ratioed" is a very good signal of anything in today's political climate. Many, many users are willing to downvote content featuring people and/or organizations they've been told are their enemies, without engaging with the content at all. In fact, this sort of thing is IMO one of the best arguments for removing downvote counts. Beyond that, I frankly don't think people should have trust in "platforms" telling them what to think, so if this change wakes up some of the "sheeple" I can only see that as a good thing. I certainly think that taking away a tool that allows people to trivially express their shallow hatred of a thing can only improve the state of discourse and critical thought in society.

ddingus 5y ago
This is all trying to tell people what to think! Pages of discussion on how data should be interpreted. All the while ignoring the big players who did not like the fact that they are widely disliked. As for taking away a tool... POTUS has a very low approval rating. The dislikes follow, as they should. That same POTUS getting after long overdue policy with majority public support would very likely see a different outcome. People disliking big media and government sell jobs? SHOCKER! Of course they did, and of course it leads to questions which, of course led to eliminating the source of those questions. Finally, "I don't think people should..." Full stop. We need to realize those other people have agency and work from there.