3 ms·

> in any case it was clearly being abused by troll hordes. Citation needed. I've never seen any data published by the YouTube team that showed that downvotes w

> in any case it was clearly being abused by troll hordes. Citation needed. I've never seen any data published by the YouTube team that showed that downvotes were being "abused by troll hordes" to the point where this was such a large problem that it merited a site-wide removal of dislike counts. With your amount of evidence (zero), I could just as easily claim that they removed the dislike counts purely because of the ratios of the YouTube Rewind videos.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
burnished 3y ago
[flagged]
- rosmax_1337 3y ago
  Atleast the Youtube Rewind case presents a clear motive. "We don't want people to show that they dislike our content, it looks bad for the company, and us as creators"
- throw10920 3y ago
  > using it to advance your own pet position is transparent and irritating It's extremely poor form and extremely intellectually dishonest to claim that other people said something that they didn't. "they removed the dislike counts purely because of the ratios of the YouTube Rewind videos" is not a claim that I was making in my comment - it was clearly an example of another position with zero evidence behind it, and the fact that I explicitly pointed out that there was no evidence makes it pretty clear that I wasn't adopting it as my own position. I suggest you read comments more carefully before responding to them, especially if you're going to put words in other peoples' mouths. > Then present your argument and evidence if you like No, that's not how this works. I don't need to present an alternative argument. As far as I know, there's no way to present any argument because there's no evidence for them, and even if there wasn't, I'm under no obligation to present an argument while debunking another. > treating the absence of evidence outside of a court room or a scientific inquiry The GP was making strong claims in their post ("it isn’t hard to justify Youtube’s choices on this very specific issue", "clearly being abused by troll hordes") and it's extremely reasonable to ask for some proof. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and so on.
somedude895 3y ago
> I've never seen any data published by the YouTube team that showed that downvotes were being "abused by troll hordes" Same but maybe they consider the people who downvoted their recent editions of Youtube Rewind troll hordes
chrisan 3y ago
If you don't thinking trolling/brigading isn't a thing I've got a bridge to sell ya.
- ta8903 3y ago
  They clearly exist, but are they big enough things to outweigh the usefulness of downvotes? Not to mention youtube already dealt with large-scale brigading by rolling back downvotes.
- throw10920 3y ago
  Please comments before replying. > to the point where this was such a large problem that it merited a site-wide removal of dislike counts

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

burnished 3y ago

[flagged]

rosmax_1337 3y ago
Atleast the Youtube Rewind case presents a clear motive. "We don't want people to show that they dislike our content, it looks bad for the company, and us as creators"
throw10920 3y ago
> using it to advance your own pet position is transparent and irritating It's extremely poor form and extremely intellectually dishonest to claim that other people said something that they didn't. "they removed the dislike counts purely because of the ratios of the YouTube Rewind videos" is not a claim that I was making in my comment - it was clearly an example of another position with zero evidence behind it, and the fact that I explicitly pointed out that there was no evidence makes it pretty clear that I wasn't adopting it as my own position. I suggest you read comments more carefully before responding to them, especially if you're going to put words in other peoples' mouths. > Then present your argument and evidence if you like No, that's not how this works. I don't need to present an alternative argument. As far as I know, there's no way to present any argument because there's no evidence for them, and even if there wasn't, I'm under no obligation to present an argument while debunking another. > treating the absence of evidence outside of a court room or a scientific inquiry The GP was making strong claims in their post ("it isn’t hard to justify Youtube’s choices on this very specific issue", "clearly being abused by troll hordes") and it's extremely reasonable to ask for some proof. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and so on.

somedude895 3y ago

> I've never seen any data published by the YouTube team that showed that downvotes were being "abused by troll hordes" Same but maybe they consider the people who downvoted their recent editions of Youtube Rewind troll hordes

chrisan 3y ago

If you don't thinking trolling/brigading isn't a thing I've got a bridge to sell ya.

ta8903 3y ago
They clearly exist, but are they big enough things to outweigh the usefulness of downvotes? Not to mention youtube already dealt with large-scale brigading by rolling back downvotes.
throw10920 3y ago
Please comments before replying. > to the point where this was such a large problem that it merited a site-wide removal of dislike counts