4 ms·

There seems to be some perverted notion that "wholesome and funny" is somehow better. Its not. Its manipulative and a case of "I know whats good for you" that

There seems to be some perverted notion that "wholesome and funny" is somehow better. Its not. Its manipulative and a case of "I know whats good for you" that can only result when someone thinks they are actually better than you. These aren't people making the things "wholesome and funny". They are criminals in teddy bear outfits controlling what people hear. Modern day clowns.

Arainach 5y ago
Have you seen YouTube comments circa 2006-2019 (no idea when this change was implemented, I gave up on reading the comments long ago)? Some of the worst toxicity of the entire Internet. 4chan at least had some funny parts, YT comments were just awful. This isn't censorship, it's trying to build an experience that doesn't actively turn people away from your platform.
- serf 5y ago
  >This isn't censorship, it's trying to build an experience that doesn't actively turn people away from your platform. i'm here to tell you that the cutesy shit drives certain people away. 'Funny' isn't some objective quality that things can be neatly sorted into with any level of accuracy, except in cases of the worst most generic/juvenile types of humor that are guaranteed to get a chuckle from 'some idiot' out there. The parody show 'Ow! My Balls!' in the movie 'Idiocracy' comes to mind.
- RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
  > 2006-2019 I believe this was when youtube was growing. > it's trying to build an experience that doesn't actively turn people away I believe youtube was growing at this time. I personally don't remember it being that toxic. But even if it were whose responsibility should it be to deal with the toxicity? The platform's or the content creator's? There's a saying that's oft repeated "dont read the comments section". That's a strategy in line with the approach I'd endorse. We shouldn't be censoring information just because its "toxic", people need to find ways to withstand or ignore or deal with the criticism that exists in the world. People develop weak immune systems if they are protected from everything, it's not just a biological thing. The American mind is as coddled as their biological immune system. We should be teaching people how to deal and withstand criticism whether valid or caustic. Otherwise we get this mad world where no one can offend anyone and you can't even tell clinically obese people their body is not healthy.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    > I personally don't remember it being that toxic. But even if it were whose responsibility should it be to deal with the toxicity? Wrong way to frame the incentives. "Who benefits if the toxicity is dealt with?" is the relvant question. (... and the answer is "the platform owner, assuming they attract more viewers with honey than acid." So, a predictable outcome if the premise holds).
    - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
      This, I can't disagree with. But moralistically I'm still at odds with the coddling.
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        Disney makes an insane amount of money off of its multiple theme parks. There's a lot of people willing to trade their hard-earned valuables (coin, time, what have you) for a little gentleness and softness. I don't see that as a moral ill. The world is sharp, cold, apathetic, and dangerous. People know. That doesn't imply people need to live in that part all the time if circumstances do not force them to. In fact, one could argue most of the last ten-odd-thousand years of building societies has been a slow crawl towards figuring out how to make something less sharp, cold, apathetic, and dangerous for people to spend their days in.
      - dpark 5y ago
        Does this mean you think there’s some moral obligation to allow toxic people to diminish a platform at everyone else’s expense? Toxic racists in YouTube comments did not provide any value to anyone, but they did create an environment that encouraged others to behave in toxic ways and they diminished the enjoyment many others derived from the platform.
        RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
        > Toxic racists in YouTube comments did not provide any value to anyone They made their presence known. Thats valuable in and of itself. If people disagree with them and they are the minority, other commenters can then throw incendiary feedback at them. Others can then watch the debate and learn how to take apart these toxic rascists using nothing but words. > diminished the enjoyment Ignorance is bliss, I'll give you that much. Most take the blue pill for a good reason.
kupopuffs 5y ago
I remember Old Youtube. It was disgusting and vile and I've never heard of more human hatred over the smallest things TBH
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  I remember when G+ tried to consume YouTube comments. My immediate reaction was "You could... But why do you want to? In what scenario is it going to benefit your fledgling social network to chug toxic waste?" ... apparently, it didn't.
Spivak 5y ago
You have it framed backwards It’s that “angry, mean, and toxic” are bad and the reason YT comments are a meme for their low quality. And then combine with the fact that “neutral” comments are boring you get “positive, funny, wholesome” as natural candidates for what should rise to the top. It’s a no-win if you demand that comments go largely unmoderated. Because we had that and it made them genuinely useless to the point where creators turned them off and people installed add-ons to remove them.
- RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
  > we had that and it made them genuinely useless That's better than one that is useful, but useful for only one affiliation.
frakkingcylons 5y ago
You say this as if the comment section used to be some oasis of invigorating debate among reasonable people. I find the wholesome and funny comments to be relatively uninteresting and dull 90% of the time, but it’s leaps and bounds better than the unmitigated angry mud slinging that used to be there.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
Are you serious? Old Youtube comments were the dumbest, vilest shit. This was commonly understood and accepted across the internet. Almost anything would be an improvement from that.
- TremendousJudge 5y ago
  For a document from this time pointing this out, see https://xkcd.com/202/ https://xkcd.com/202/ (from 2006) and https://xkcd.com/481/ https://xkcd.com/481/ (from 2008)
  - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
    Haha. There's always a relevant xkcd. These comics unfortunately both highlight the need for toxicity and dissenting opinions. In the first, moon landing conspiracists have come out with great suspicious findings including the fact that the "moon rock" given to the dutch is actually just a peice of petrified wood [1]. Given the political need to appear more technologically advanced during the cold war its a very real possibility. I'm not saying the moon landings were fake, but to quash any disagreement if the intent is to be as truthful as possible would be a mistake. In the second, the user gets valuable feedback that he's a moron, which he would not if he were censored. He would only dive deeper into anger if he found out he was silenced. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32581790 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32581790
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      Ah yes, the “valuable feedback” of being called a moron by an internet rando.
      - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
        You know, I personally value getting downvotes as much as upvotes. I'm not looking for confirmation bias. I'm looking to get thoughts moving, if people are affected by my words that's a good thing whether they agree or disagree. Both negative and positive feedback is good, I'll take even little critiques. If the critiques themselves have no substance, like an internet rando calling me a moron without a rationale, then its mostly useless to me, but I appreciate that its there. I don't let this "toxicity" get to me, but that means I'm not outsourcing a machine to protect me from it. Not only does facing more toxicity build up my own immune system and make me stronger, I'm not dancing with like minded people circle jerking a helicopter into the clouds of confirmation biases. Doesn't matter what the attack is, its actually good to have some of it around. Learning to deal with it makes people more resilient. We shouldn't be trying to get machines to do it for us, we should be making it the standard rhetoric that people should lean into criticisms consuming it to strengthen themselves. Moron.
Jeema101 5y ago
It's fine if you think that attempting to remove toxic content amounts to censorship - you have a right to that opinion - but it doesn't change the fact that the toxicity itself still exists. But are you also angry at the people in society who create that toxicity or just the people trying to control it?
- RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
  I'm not angry at either. The people trying to control it are just doing the most logical thing to create a happy place. But my position is that that is an elementary mistake, like never letting your child play outside. I'm saying some level of toxicity is better than none. Have you ever been part of an organization where people are not allowed to disagree? Rhetorical question. Another analogy is that we need to have managed forest fires, instead of trying to quash every little fire at every turn which only results in a catastrophic blaze when one turns up that is out of control.

Arainach 5y ago

Have you seen YouTube comments circa 2006-2019 (no idea when this change was implemented, I gave up on reading the comments long ago)? Some of the worst toxicity of the entire Internet. 4chan at least had some funny parts, YT comments were just awful. This isn't censorship, it's trying to build an experience that doesn't actively turn people away from your platform.

serf 5y ago
>This isn't censorship, it's trying to build an experience that doesn't actively turn people away from your platform. i'm here to tell you that the cutesy shit drives certain people away. 'Funny' isn't some objective quality that things can be neatly sorted into with any level of accuracy, except in cases of the worst most generic/juvenile types of humor that are guaranteed to get a chuckle from 'some idiot' out there. The parody show 'Ow! My Balls!' in the movie 'Idiocracy' comes to mind.
RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
> 2006-2019 I believe this was when youtube was growing. > it's trying to build an experience that doesn't actively turn people away I believe youtube was growing at this time. I personally don't remember it being that toxic. But even if it were whose responsibility should it be to deal with the toxicity? The platform's or the content creator's? There's a saying that's oft repeated "dont read the comments section". That's a strategy in line with the approach I'd endorse. We shouldn't be censoring information just because its "toxic", people need to find ways to withstand or ignore or deal with the criticism that exists in the world. People develop weak immune systems if they are protected from everything, it's not just a biological thing. The American mind is as coddled as their biological immune system. We should be teaching people how to deal and withstand criticism whether valid or caustic. Otherwise we get this mad world where no one can offend anyone and you can't even tell clinically obese people their body is not healthy.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  > I personally don't remember it being that toxic. But even if it were whose responsibility should it be to deal with the toxicity? Wrong way to frame the incentives. "Who benefits if the toxicity is dealt with?" is the relvant question. (... and the answer is "the platform owner, assuming they attract more viewers with honey than acid." So, a predictable outcome if the premise holds).
  - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
    This, I can't disagree with. But moralistically I'm still at odds with the coddling.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      Disney makes an insane amount of money off of its multiple theme parks. There's a lot of people willing to trade their hard-earned valuables (coin, time, what have you) for a little gentleness and softness. I don't see that as a moral ill. The world is sharp, cold, apathetic, and dangerous. People know. That doesn't imply people need to live in that part all the time if circumstances do not force them to. In fact, one could argue most of the last ten-odd-thousand years of building societies has been a slow crawl towards figuring out how to make something less sharp, cold, apathetic, and dangerous for people to spend their days in.
    - dpark 5y ago
      Does this mean you think there’s some moral obligation to allow toxic people to diminish a platform at everyone else’s expense? Toxic racists in YouTube comments did not provide any value to anyone, but they did create an environment that encouraged others to behave in toxic ways and they diminished the enjoyment many others derived from the platform.
      - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
        > Toxic racists in YouTube comments did not provide any value to anyone They made their presence known. Thats valuable in and of itself. If people disagree with them and they are the minority, other commenters can then throw incendiary feedback at them. Others can then watch the debate and learn how to take apart these toxic rascists using nothing but words. > diminished the enjoyment Ignorance is bliss, I'll give you that much. Most take the blue pill for a good reason.

kupopuffs 5y ago

I remember Old Youtube. It was disgusting and vile and I've never heard of more human hatred over the smallest things TBH

shadowgovt 5y ago
I remember when G+ tried to consume YouTube comments. My immediate reaction was "You could... But why do you want to? In what scenario is it going to benefit your fledgling social network to chug toxic waste?" ... apparently, it didn't.

Spivak 5y ago

You have it framed backwards It’s that “angry, mean, and toxic” are bad and the reason YT comments are a meme for their low quality. And then combine with the fact that “neutral” comments are boring you get “positive, funny, wholesome” as natural candidates for what should rise to the top. It’s a no-win if you demand that comments go largely unmoderated. Because we had that and it made them genuinely useless to the point where creators turned them off and people installed add-ons to remove them.

RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
> we had that and it made them genuinely useless That's better than one that is useful, but useful for only one affiliation.

frakkingcylons 5y ago

You say this as if the comment section used to be some oasis of invigorating debate among reasonable people. I find the wholesome and funny comments to be relatively uninteresting and dull 90% of the time, but it’s leaps and bounds better than the unmitigated angry mud slinging that used to be there.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

Are you serious? Old Youtube comments were the dumbest, vilest shit. This was commonly understood and accepted across the internet. Almost anything would be an improvement from that.

TremendousJudge 5y ago
For a document from this time pointing this out, see https://xkcd.com/202/ https://xkcd.com/202/ (from 2006) and https://xkcd.com/481/ https://xkcd.com/481/ (from 2008)
- RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
  Haha. There's always a relevant xkcd. These comics unfortunately both highlight the need for toxicity and dissenting opinions. In the first, moon landing conspiracists have come out with great suspicious findings including the fact that the "moon rock" given to the dutch is actually just a peice of petrified wood [1]. Given the political need to appear more technologically advanced during the cold war its a very real possibility. I'm not saying the moon landings were fake, but to quash any disagreement if the intent is to be as truthful as possible would be a mistake. In the second, the user gets valuable feedback that he's a moron, which he would not if he were censored. He would only dive deeper into anger if he found out he was silenced. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32581790 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32581790
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    Ah yes, the “valuable feedback” of being called a moron by an internet rando.
    - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
      You know, I personally value getting downvotes as much as upvotes. I'm not looking for confirmation bias. I'm looking to get thoughts moving, if people are affected by my words that's a good thing whether they agree or disagree. Both negative and positive feedback is good, I'll take even little critiques. If the critiques themselves have no substance, like an internet rando calling me a moron without a rationale, then its mostly useless to me, but I appreciate that its there. I don't let this "toxicity" get to me, but that means I'm not outsourcing a machine to protect me from it. Not only does facing more toxicity build up my own immune system and make me stronger, I'm not dancing with like minded people circle jerking a helicopter into the clouds of confirmation biases. Doesn't matter what the attack is, its actually good to have some of it around. Learning to deal with it makes people more resilient. We shouldn't be trying to get machines to do it for us, we should be making it the standard rhetoric that people should lean into criticisms consuming it to strengthen themselves. Moron.

Jeema101 5y ago

It's fine if you think that attempting to remove toxic content amounts to censorship - you have a right to that opinion - but it doesn't change the fact that the toxicity itself still exists. But are you also angry at the people in society who create that toxicity or just the people trying to control it?

RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
I'm not angry at either. The people trying to control it are just doing the most logical thing to create a happy place. But my position is that that is an elementary mistake, like never letting your child play outside. I'm saying some level of toxicity is better than none. Have you ever been part of an organization where people are not allowed to disagree? Rhetorical question. Another analogy is that we need to have managed forest fires, instead of trying to quash every little fire at every turn which only results in a catastrophic blaze when one turns up that is out of control.