OK, it’s all about the little independent, every day content creators, that’s who YouTube cares about, not big corporate interests and things like people review bombing the 2016 Ghostbuster’s reboot. Let’s say you’re right, I’ll take Matty Koval at his word.
He says this is about stopping small and new content creators from being attacked en masse by people disliking their videos out of spite to harm their work. If that’s the case, you should surely be pleased, as this is stopping the public and groups of people from maliciously and arbitrarily attacking and cancelling creators. Surely this should be pleasing news, anything that helps stop online mobs from cancelling people and harming their livelihoods?
Being upset and complaining about something affecting you is the definition of a snowflake?
So what would that make you for complaining about YouTube removing the public count of dislikes and explaining how this negatively affects you in terms of you now struggling to know if a video is worth watching?
I don’t care much about what it means for the creators.
First and foremost, the like dislike ratio was a very handy tool to decide if the content was worth watching.
It has never failed me and I have not come across any video in my life where the creator was hounded off by dislike bombing.
For someone like me who watches lot of educational/informative videos on Youtube, this was a handy tool. I hope they reverse it.
It’s interesting to get a sense of how much others seem to rely on the dislikes to guide them on whether something is worth watching. I can honestly say I’ve never started watching a video, noticed it has more dislikes than likes, and then stopped watching it.
I prefer to form my own opinions as an independent, free thinker rather than being a sheep and following the herd, what can I say?
It is not just about deciding whether to stop watching the video.
Science videos are critical and for someone who is approaching an informative video assuming the content is true from all aspects, getting a look at abnormal amount of dislikes would suggest there is some portion of the video which may give me incorrect information.
As suggested in the video I posted, I will drop down to comments to check why there are dislikes.
It helps make sure I don’t drop out of a video and assume whatever I learnt was true and propagate it to someone else.
Bro, you really need to raise your standards for fact checking scientific information if you use the dislike counter for that purpose to such extent. That’s not really a good indicator as to the veracity of the information you’re viewing.
Edit: and yes, the stuff about being a “free thinker” was not sincere haha. I am not a fan of wankers who unironically label themselves free thinkers lol
Maybe you should just fact check as a matter of routine then, cos likes and dislikes don’t indicate truth or accuracy in the slightest, just popularity. Videos with more likes than dislikes can be full totally full of shite too.
I don’t think it makes a difference, by just being online and creating content you make it easy to be cancelled and targeted, comes with the territory. All removing the dislike button does is remove a function which serves a useful purpose. Ultimately that’s worse for the consumer.
The problem for me is that it just further fosters snowflakery. Instead of removing everything that is perceived as hurting “someone’s mental health”, how about someone learns to have a bit of a thicker skin and realise not everyone will like, agree or interact with them. That’s life.
To me a lot of the hysteria caused over one’s feelings hurts and pandering to it is a very negative trend. Because where does it stop? What is offensive is subjective and relative per person. Who is the arbiter of what is allowed and what is not? It is a very dangerous slippery slope.
I rather be offended and hurt than deny freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
OK, heard it here first, cancel culture is just a fact and if you wanna exist in an online space you just have to accept it as a reality. No efforts should ever be made to prevent people being cancelled as it comes with the territory
It makes a difference to the content creator who gets a vicious online mob downvoting their videos and harming their livelihood. According to Matt Koval, who we’re taking at his word.
Tbf I get that you might feel it makes no difference, as that’s pretty much exactly how I feel about them removing the public display of downvotes.
I don’t really disagree with much of this tbf, I’m just not sure it’s relevant to the point I made. All of that can be true at the same time as it being true that he received unfair treatment in comparison to the Tories and other Labour leaders.
Also, I don’t want to retread over too much of the Corbyn years, as it was a total shotshow in the end and its best to move on. The reason I brought it up was to respond to the idea that the BBC News output I some respect favours the opposition and is biased against the Tories, which I just can’t see. I take your point about the comedy output tending to have a left wing slant, certianly more than it has a right wing bias. I was more focusing on the news side of the organisation, which I think its more significant to examine if we’re discussing whether the BBC is partisan towards any particular party.
I appreciate you don’t like, or maybe even hate, Boris and Trump, so don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to label you anything that you aren’t because of your opinions here. I do appreciate that we’re broadly on the same side politically (leaving aside the “culture wars” type stuff where I think we do diverge, which can be significant), in that we both consider ourselves to be left wing rather than right wing, and I guess would probably consider Labour to be the party we’d be most naturally aligned to? Maybe this is just another example in the long history of leftist infighting
