> But since Youtube sees dislike as a signal to boost a video, it spreads content-views to things that people don't like, but feel compelled to interact with in

> But since Youtube sees dislike as a signal to boost a video, it spreads content-views to things that people don't like, but feel compelled to interact with in (what I assume is) the "Not now, I'm busy - someone is being wrong on the internet" kind of way. I just don’t see YT having the same feedback loops as other places. You can stay on without being directly typing in comments like on fb or twitter. I personally never see rage-inducing content on YouTube (nor other sites), nor do i see it on my partners, friends, parents accounts. I’m sure it’s there, but I think that people who get it are training their recommendations to show it, not being forced it. I get way more rageful content on TikTok ironically, which has a way weaker “dislike” signal and a stronger propensity to show you new things. To the point, I understand the incentive someone like fb has to show content people don’t like but still engage with, but I’m not sure that the incentive exists in YouTube. Furthermore I think we discredit companies (who are made up of sentient and capable people) to recognize short term vs long term value and the importance of reputation. I reject the notion that there’s someone in San Bruno pitching that they use the dislike button to show more of that video instead of a negative quality signal. No one I know in Silicon Valley who works in tech would make such a suggestion, and they’re no different than the YouTube team on a fundamental level.