Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Struggles To Fight Mobs Weaponizing Their 'Dislike' Button (theverge.com)
"YouTube is no stranger to viewers weaponizing the dislike button, as seen by the company's recent Rewind video, but the product development team is working on a way to tackle the issue," writes the Verge.
Suren Enfiajyan shares their report on a new video by Tom Leung, YouTube's director of project management. "Dislike mobs" are the YouTube equivalent to review bombings on Steam -- a group of people who are upset with a certain creator or game decide to execute an organized attack and downvote or negatively review a game or video into oblivion. It's an issue on YouTube as well, and one that creators have spoken out against many times in the past.... Now, the company is planning to experiment with new ways to make it more difficult for organized attacks to be executed. Leung states that these are just "lightly being discussed" right now, and if none of the options are the correct approach, they may hold off until a better idea comes along.
Ironically, Leung's video itself drew 2,654 "dislike" votes -- nearly double its 1,377 upvotes.
Suren Enfiajyan shares their report on a new video by Tom Leung, YouTube's director of project management. "Dislike mobs" are the YouTube equivalent to review bombings on Steam -- a group of people who are upset with a certain creator or game decide to execute an organized attack and downvote or negatively review a game or video into oblivion. It's an issue on YouTube as well, and one that creators have spoken out against many times in the past.... Now, the company is planning to experiment with new ways to make it more difficult for organized attacks to be executed. Leung states that these are just "lightly being discussed" right now, and if none of the options are the correct approach, they may hold off until a better idea comes along.
Ironically, Leung's video itself drew 2,654 "dislike" votes -- nearly double its 1,377 upvotes.
What about mobs weaponizing the like button to generate fake data?
Notice how Facebook and you tube never talk about fake impressions when it appears positive?
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
This is a first amendment violation!
Slashdot Moderation is just as weaponized.
Gee, the "creators" don't like the "dislike" button? But they are A-OK with the "like" button? That's stunning, who would have guessed?
and the 10-to-1 ratio of dislikes that their incredibly offensive new advertisement generated.
I would love to know how many downvotes and negative comments were deleted by Gillette.
Would rather see YouTube end the sort of cheating that Gillette embraces.
Get rid of the like / dislike buttons, get rid of the comments. Disengage.
The core fallacy lies in the delusion of thinking you can assign one person to one vote / user account / IP address / cookie or whatever.
You are not dealing with people, and unless you want to start personally verifying passports, you never will. You are dealing with computers. Ultra-high-performance automation machines on massive-bandwith connections. The only limits you can impose, are rate limiting ones. That's it.
It's the old "Who watches the watchmen?" Except this time it's "Who reviews the reviewers? Who votes on the voters?". And the answer is analogous: In the end, it's always YOU. ... Like with the above mentioned passport verifications ... including a method to determine if a state holds valid passports for non-existing people ... you have to swallow the pill: Everyone's gonna automate everything. And your interface should not even try to prevent it. But accept it, and learn what useful things you can do with that. Instead of forcing an analogy on the Internet that just isn't valid.
Unless you can do that
For example this happens to reviews on metacritic as well.
There you have games like Company of Heroes 2, which caused a lot of outrage among Russians. If you read the user reviews it certainly does look like an organized mob of Russians made it their goal to keep the user rating very low. On metacritic the game has a user rating of 2.1 out of 5700 reviews.
On Valve's Steam however the game has 74% positive reviews from users out of almost 27000 reviews.
Notably, people have to spend money for the product on Steam or activate it otherwise before they can leave a review there, while on youtube just anyone is eligible for casting their vote. As the summary mentions "review bombings" on Steam, this method isn't fool proof, but it looks like it works a little bit better than without it.
Maybe for youtube a similar approach could work. Put the voting behind some kind of pay wall, or make people otherwise contribute to the community in a way before they can make trollish impressions. Or make a public rating vs. contributor rating or whatever.
Will it be unbiased? I strongly doubt it. But there must be some room for improvement.
If you participate in two or there such rallies then your account becomes flagged as an activist and as such discounted as new accounts under six months old are. It's like throwing your credibility away.
A very bad example of 'weaponizing' the dislike button. YouTube rewind truly sucked the big one. Some of those that participated said as much, although they were careful in their choice of words so they wouldn't bite the hand that feeds them.
And .. I don't care. I have never let the number of dislikes dissuade me from watching something. And since I rarely watch anything in 'trending', I would say the number of likes or views a video gets is also not relevant.
The only ego being bruised is that of the creator.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
When idiots and people with bad intent are given as loud a voice as people with expertise and good intention, the result is anarchy, schemes like Bitcoin, and unqualified people getting elected to public office. The only ways to combat it are to teach critical thinking skills and start requiring some basic qualifications other than having access to a computer, to gain access to platforms that amplify a person's influence.
YouTube channels grown men doing feminine queenie poses to get people to click on their YouTube channel. Middle-aged men trying to act like teenagers. Howdy partners! I have got a baseball cap on the wrong way round and my trousers are so tight I busted one of my ball bags and my trousers are so far up my arsehole they have got a brown skidmark showing through.
Do not forget to click on like and subscribe!
Google rose to prominence by showing the web as it was without fear or favour. This gave them considerable advantage over then-competitors who hand-indexed the web based upon user inputs and corporate priorities. Google is normalizing deviance from this critical system. For them, this was a category one priority and much of their internal product research was based around this. Weaponizing the dislike button is as common as brigading the like button. People beg for likes as they share videos about this or that important message depending on this week's crisis du jour. In fact, many YouTube videos begin and end by begging for likes. I bet if people had brigaded the like button for YouTube's Rewind video management would not be complaining. It will take a while but Google prioritizing opinion shaping will devalue their search product offering. And given how broadly distributed their search function is throughout their product portfolio this may have interesting second and third order effects.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Just because their Rewind video sucked balls and garned universal condemnation does not mean "organized groups are weaponizing the downvote button". They are just expressing their discontent.
YouTube's problem is that they *still* don't get it. They have no idea why their platform works, treat content creators like numbers, and think PC mumbo-jumbo is actually going to be respected outside left-wing echo chambers and pressure groups.
It's not weaponized if the videos actually do suck.
...laura
It's self-validating to try to manage a tempest in a teapot.
Also, you can fool investors into paying you to do it.
First you want the opinion of your peers on your content, and when they don't like it, now you don't want their opinion?
Look, it's an all or nothing situation, IMHO. Take both buttons away and never report likes/dislikes on anything ever again, or leave it be.
One of the factors leading to the Digg's decline in popularity was a scandal involving a group known as the "Digg Patriots." Political campaigners* who used a combination of organised disliking and an understanding of the Digg site operation to manipulate it. By monitoring the feed of submissions, they were able to identify any upcoming story which reflected badly on their political stances, or which might be used to support opposing stances - and then message an alert to the group to collectively vote against that submission long before it could reach the front page feed.
If you watch enough youtube videos relating to politics or religion, you will eventually come across stories of the semi-organised mobs on there - when a moderately prominent youtuber with a few thousand subscribers asks them to go and dislike a video by someone else, either because of a disagreement over an issue or over a personal dispute. Some of the mob will take it further and look for excuses to submit inappropriate content alerts too - which, given that youtube is almost entirely automated in that regard, can be very difficult to challenge.
*Their political alignment is not important for this example, only their methods.
For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.
Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse
It has blood on it!
ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander
The assault dislike button ban. There is no reason the general public should have mob style weapons. Exclusions apply for police and military of course as they need to dislike videos that could be harmful to the public.
It will be difficult to dislike a video from a liberal socialist org and very easy to dislike a video from a conservative capitalist org.
You read it here, first.
Although it's harder to see why today than it was in the past. Long, long ago, YouTube allowed you to see a like vs viewed ratio. That's the value that's really important - what percentage of people who viewed a video liked it? I dunno why YouTube removed it, but presumably it's still used in their internal "recommended for you" algorithm. Otherwise new videos would never be recommended because they always have fewer likes than older liked videos.
If you generate fake likes to try to get more people to view the video, that drives the percentage likes up. If that succeeds in getting the video more organic views (by people not affliated with your fake campaign) but those people don't like it, it drives the percentage likes back down. And your video drops back down into obscurity (unless you've got one helluva fake like-generating network). And your campaign to artificially increase how often the video is viewed is unsuccessful (after an initial brief success, how brief depends on the size of your fake campaign).
OTOH, if you generate fake dislikes and try to use the likes vs dislikes ratio to determine which videos are worth watching, then the fake dislikes crater the ratio, and bury the video into obscurity. The video gets fewer organic views (instead of more as with positive-like bombing), making it less able to recover from the fake reviews. And your campaign to bury the video into obscurity is successful.
In other words, a fake like campaign makes it easier for organic viewers to counter the campaign. A fake dislike campaign makes it harder for organic viewers to counter the campaign.
Notice the choice of words. "weaponizing" & "mob".
The snowflake generation sure does have a talent for twisting the reality of a situation with dramatic language.
Weapon: A non-verbal feedback tool that simply indicated whether the participant liked or disliked a product or experience.
Mob: The customer.
Silicon Valley is a 'mob' of pedantic infantilized snowflake millennials created by well off suburban helicopter parents raised off Tumblr. There is no weaponization of the downvote or dislike button. People simply don't like your productions for one reason or another and that downvote button is literally the most polite way of letting you know that.
Grow up.
Nexus Mods has had the correct solution to this problem for years already: Remove the dislike button.
Just build up a database of which videos I've viewed, which ones I've liked, and which ones I've disliked and generate a preference profile on me. Do this for everyone and generate preference profiles for every account. Find people with a similar preference profile as me and recommend to me videos they've watched and tend to like. Don't recommend to me videos they've watched and tend to dislike. People with a substantially different preference profile should have no effect on what's recommended to me.
Do this for every account, and the only thing a dislike-bombing campaign does is change which videos are recommended to people likely to participate in that particular dislike-bombing campaign. Which presumably is what they want since their profile says they're likely to participate in that campaign. That is, if your video preference profile is similar to those of people in the dislike-bombing campaign, then the video will not be recommended to you (though you probably never would have watched it anyway if it hadn't been for the dislike-bombing campaign). If your preference profile is different from those people in the dislike-bombing campaign, then the campaign will have zero effect on whether or not the video is recommended to you.
Netflix does this. The list of recommended movies you see is based on how closely that movie matches with other movies you've seen (based on the movie-watching history of other Netflix customers).
It fell flat not because of weaponized dislike but because it was horrible and tried to push what the people running youtube wanted to be pushed.
But hey they are the gods of the internet, the public will damn well like what they tell them to.
One idea I've had for a while... have software attempt to group users by 'tribe' based upon their own past like/dislike patterns, then show people review scores weighed against their own tribe's voting patterns. So, if militant feminists go out and downvote anything with an actor they dislike, only militant feminists will see the overwhelming hate. Ditto, if dudebros go around upvoting videos feminists tend to hate... the score THEY see will be high. Likewise, for ardent fundamenalists, Greens, libertarians, Bernie Bros, etc.
In the long run, participating in organized voting will just get you lumped into a tribe & screw up the review scores YOU see.
Triggered?
Organized mobs can come from everywhere.
I find the dislikes offset everyone paying/farming for likes.
I wonder - Will Gillette hold NFL players to the same standards shown in their commercial?
I highly doubt it.
i sniff youre dog butthoals,
what about
D A N N Y___M U L L E N
Wonder if there is a site/forum that tries this. Does any one in slashdot know such a system?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The far left love to divide people into classes of victims, except for white men, who make up oppressing patriarchy.
That’s why the ad was so terrible. I didn’t see it aimed at individuals, but at all white men.
Unfortunately, these lefty nut jobs occupy the entire humanities departments, which spills into the education departments. The effect of this is having primary school children, who used to at least get some Sunday school, now being told they are gender fluid snowflakes that to feel out their sexuality.
I would call it child abuse. Gillette are just another corporate jumping on the latest man bashing lefty trend to try to appeal to millineals brain washed by Marxist’s teachers and professors.
46137
YouTube has gone from a relatively benign place where cat videos were posted, to Just Another Social Media site. Eschew all the 'social media' 'features' and just watch the damned cat videos instead.
Likes/Dislikes are dross; if you don't want to see how bad your content is, disable the ratings.
Comments are dross; if you don't want to see what people think about your content, disable the comments.
The truly weaponized button is the report button. False flagging campaigns to get content age restricted, put in limited state, or removed altogether have been around since before likes and comment were a glimmer in the trolls' eyes. Now it has been weaponized to get entire content creators removed from platforms. And coming to a platform near you, we are beginning to see content creators being unpersoned not just from a platform, but from life in general; now the mobs take away your ability to make a living outside the platform (or even more recently your access to the monetary system). While I hate to say this, it will take government intervention to undo the unpersoning we see these days.
If you can't handle likes, dislikes and comments grow a thicker skin or get off the platform. If you can't handle someone else's content to the point of trying to get them kicked off the platform, maybe it's you that really needs to go. If you can't handle someone else's content to the point of trying to get them unpersoned, it's prison time for you.
I remember an old George Carlin bit about someone complaining about content they didn't like on the radio and trying to get it banned. George pointed out that radios have two buttons, one button changes the station -- and the other TURNS IT OFF. Ah the wisdom we now ignore ;(.
I was going to write something along the same lines but you nailed it thanks.
I'm not in any hurry to make it a political thing, it would just add more exposed surfaces for people to nitpick on an otherwise solid point: The bald anphemism, trying to vilify Having An Opinion.
Disphemism.
Antiphemism.
Conphemism.
Dephemism.
Hmm, no, sticking with anphemism.
Users "weaponize" the dislike button? Seems to me that characterization is a tad overdramatic.
Using "like" and "dislike" is not turning out as pretty as you imagined it would? You've got the data, Google... perhaps you should study it and learn a thing or two about human nature.
Or, you could just redesign your feedback mechanism and stick your head in the sand by coming up with a way to completely sanitize user feedback. I bet your corporate buddies can't wait for that one.
So people calling out Rewind is an evil doublebad mob with weapons, but the clusterfuck of claim reporting (not tolerating but embracing automated ones) is acceptable.
Whatever, let it burn, not my loss. When I'm cornered and absolutely need a youtube video I DDL and view locally. Like someone studying a plant strain and plucking specimens from a post-apocalyptic wasteland, so they can inspect it somewhere out of the cancerous radiation.
"Speech [and video] doesn't swing fists at your nose." - Incitement to violence is a crime determined by a judge/jury, this is a limitation of 1st Amendment rights. You're a moron if you think otherwise Davis, not a legal scholar.
Yes, you can have freedom of speech and hate speech laws, because all rights are limited against eachother. Where speech is proven to be a contributing factor in violence with that intent, it's illegal. Your false dichotomy doesn't apply.
Not in this country anyway, where there are no absolute rights that outweigh all other rights in every single case. You're spreading mis-educated non-facts.
Various downvote crews turned a mediocre news aggregator into a worthless website.
The younger generation of YouTubers are like graffiti vandals ready to ruin everything around themselves while the rest of the users wonder why the site keeps getting worse.
I give YouTube about 5 years before it is a complete failure.
Yes, you can have freedom of speech and hate speech laws, because all rights are limited against each other. Where speech is proven to be a contributing factor in violence with that intent, it's illegal. Your false dichotomy doesn't apply.
The problem here isn't the banning of people trying to start violence. The problem is the banning of people who just have differing opinions than those of the social media corporations. For instance Prager University has had more than 30 videos pulled for so called "hate speech". They were nothing of the sort, but wrongly labeled as such. The true problem is that the definition of hate speech is so nebulous that it becomes impossible to actually define it. Best to let free speech be the default, and provide a better argument for that which you don't agree with.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
I was responding in context to a post about so-called hate speech videos on YouTube and his comparing that to "swinging a fist in my face". Those are obviously not comparable.
You are correct about inciting of violence against individuals, but that goes beyond "hate speech". Stating your opinions on something or supporting certain legislation is not inciting violence... yet the "left" would often label those as "hate speech".
So in that regard, I am correct. You can't have "hate speech" banned and still have free speech [as we know it in the USA]. The USA doesn't have "hate speech laws". So please take your apparently "educated" self to WikiPedia for a moment before blasting others with curse words (or it is hate speech?):
"The United States does not have hate speech laws, since American courts have repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[8] There are several categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is not one of these categories.[97][not in citation given]"
By the way, I love how you tout my name in your reply subject (and with the insult and curse word) as if you are going to punish or embarrass me from your high moral ground, while hiding behind anonymity. Great job.
"The problem here isn't the banning of people trying to start violence." - Granted, that was a larger point addressing his false assertions of unlimited speech.
However he's also a pro-business-doing-whatever Libertarian. That means youtube can kick nazis, republicans, anyone they feel like to the curb for any reason, provided laws are not broken in that process.
"They were nothing of the sort, but wrongly labeled as such" - I'm not familiar with your citation, but that requires interpretation to be acknowledged as a fact.
"The true problem is that the definition of hate speech is so nebulous " - Not legally, no. It's actually pretty specific.
"Best to let free speech be the default, and provide a better argument for that which you don't agree with." - Well, you haven't convinced me that sites/society don't collectively have the right to censor you. They do.
The only protection is from GOVERNMENT censorship of speech that is not prohibited, such as threats or incitement.
So you need a better argument if you're going to rely on the 1st Amendment as your rock for private sector society to be "forced" to follow - because they don't actually have to.
Which is better? That's a value judgment. Some people would say allowing nazi idiots to spew hatred effectively kills discussions. Others call it "free speech" - who is right? It depends on the observer's determination.
But you certainly don't obtain any legal right to spew hate speech including incitements or threats or blanket harassment of entire groups of people beyond your own means, certainly not on FB or YT or anywhere you don't own.
Of course there's a happy medium. Nazis/hate groups/trolls/provacateurs are simply trying to abuse your argument taken to the extreme, and no one is going to just let the idiot inbreds so.
And if you become enough of a threatening hateful pariah, yes, there will be social consequences for you. As society intended from the beginning.
And now the retarded bitch Alexander Peter Kowalski whines about his spam getting modded down. He is just too dumb to realize that when he doesn't get modded down his ass gets destroyed. He has nothing and can't backup his statements, so instead he just keeps repeating his disproved bullshit.
Fuck Off APK
Google chose to "weaponize" YouTube for quite some times now. I'd say their users "weaponizing" it back is only fair game.
If Google and other corps are going to just dismiss feedback they dont like might as well not have the farce of a rating system at all. Just disable it by default and then you can churn out as many SJW vids as you like and imagine they're all universally beloved.
Recent "controversial" videos have been objectively terrible. Failing to realize that even normie centrists hate your content, and trying to charge your political enemies is only going to lead to a greater divide between the people and the platform.
They didn't even claim "muh bots"!
All they're saying is "we don't like it when people dislike videos".
If you don't like people genuinely disliking your content then how about not posting?
Ofcourse they're going to do something stupid like make YouTube remove the dislike button instead
That's theoretically what YouTube and other collaborative filtering systems are doing. Although, I guess not the part about showing different like/dislike numbers to different groups. In practice, YouTube's algorithms are gamed and the recommended videos are often junk.
Agreed 110% but there is a way around it & it JAMS UP DORKS abusing downmods + I use it constantly since everyone KNOWS I have a psycho STALKING me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts (submitting ac so he can 'downmod' me):
I have NO LIMITS on how many posts I can make here on /. (unilke std. ac posters), so, I simply resubmit a post that's been downmoderated on me BOGUSLY (abusing it) until the DIMWIT doing it runs DRY of his abused 'downmodpoints', lol!
* Works like a CHARM, every single time - effectively NEUTRALIZING their troll "ne'er-do-well" do-NOTHING waste of life bullshit - NULLIFIED whimps & WEEZILz!
SEE? https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
APK
P.S.=> I love it, lmao - why? Well, since it's TRADITION for me to say this? I will, again:
It's just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" to show the planet that "their kind" are not only the "not-men" wastes of life I said they are, but that they PROVE that I can EASILY smoke their weak asses, lol... apk
Incitment to violence is a completely different thing from "hate speech". Here's a hint: the difference is that incitement to violence is always wrong, while hate speech is supposedly only wrong if it's targetting certain groups, and perfectly okay when targetting other groups (who are just told to check their privilege and suck it up).
Zero-seconds viewed and Dislike smashed - why do they even count that?
It's perfectly reasonable to weight the ratios based on some evidence that the viewer actually tried to watch and maybe understand the video.
It's like they're pretending they have no analytics, no referrer, no neural net expertise inhouse, no data whatsoever to make a more accurate system.
Jesus, quit bitching and start solving problems. Google used to do that.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Start your own video hosting website. Problem solved. Problem is folks who feel disenfranchised by YouTube etc are more than happy to accept, for FREE, all the infrastructure, marketing, and other expenses Google has put towards this effort. To the time of billions of dollars.
It's called "you made bad content" and or "you need a critique"
Weaponized? It's being used exactly correctly you vapid cunts.
You know not everything deserves straight A's??
If you out something out in the public square and the public rejects it....
It could have been me. It could have been an army of accounts directed by an office with something to gain. It's probably true, and you're probably mad.
But like the people angry with Trump or Hillary, there's nothing you can do with your anger towards the media. You're not the player. You're not in control. You're the object being played with, and short of tuning out completely, there's nothing you can do about it. No matter what, you will continue being a victim of circumstances outside of your control. The best you can do is assume the worst, hedge every bet, make Plan Cs for your Plan Bs, and work really... really hard.
Yep and pretty soon everyone is only hearing the opinions they like, automatically think every other opinion is the minority, in a giant happy bubble echo-chamber enabled by technology.
Then when reality hits them entire offices have mental breakdowns and have to shut down for a couple of days and think everyone else is a radical extremist because how else can one's isolated brain explain that other people have a different opinion?
It must be trolls! It must be 4chan's doing! It must be xenophobic-racist-misogynists-radical-alt-right-transphobic-homophobic-Nazi-Russian bots!
I doubt that many "famous" Youtubers actually have very many followers at all. Rather, Alphabet/Youtube pretends they have millions of followers as an excuse to give them front page billing.
The purpose is to force feed their audience a steaming crock of brain-rotting antisocial pro-evil schlock. Remember, YouTube is now run by a bunch of scoundrels who formerly worked in the TV industry.
When considering the actions of an overtly evil company like Alphabet, it's always safe to assume malice and deceit.
It is possible that people really dont like the content @Youtube.
Look it is retarded bitch Alexander Peter Kowalski's even more retarded friend AlecStaar here to defend him while he cries himself to sleep because he knows the criticisms are true.
1) Youtube's own BS with Will Smith that was one of the most disliked videos on, well, Youtube.
2) Then Gillete's insulting "don't rape beegud" wonder that was disliked
Sometimes, people are genuinely pissed off about one's content and sometimes it happens with content that is wonderfully progressive from SJW folks perspective.
I have a simple recipe for "digital victims" of this kind: if you don't want hordes of pissed of people to downvote your content, just don't piss off people, at least en mass. Hey, look how well it worked for Edgar Watches, who has shown some respect for men, instead of pissing on them.
Many, many sites already learned this the hard way.
Imagine that every video or product would get a rating from everyone on Earth. Each person gets one thumbs up or thumbs down option. How many games, books, videos or other products would get a majority positive reviews?
Then there is the vocal minority problem, where there is a minority which has very strong opinions and lots of time to voice them as loud as they can. We can see that in the USA politics today, anyone expressing any views near the center will get attacked by global minorities from the left and from the right. In the age of social outrage, the only survivable positions are extreme left or extreme right, at least you got one set of vocals on your side an only get attacked from one side.
One solution is to create multiple virtual review buckets, akin to Netflix rating system - "majority of people who tend to rate content like you liked this product". The vocal minorities will have their own buckets to voice their approvals or displeasures.
Between the marketer or interest groups it work both way : they sometimes want to push the dislike to make something go away.... And push the like to promote something. Ask yourself why only the "dislike" stuffing are spoken about, but not the "like" stuffing.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
People do. Then the banks and internet providers deplatform them.
'salt is good for you' as an example. Sure you need a certain amount of salt to survive and nature provides that naturally in the food we eat, what we don't need is copious amounts of salt to be added to food and there are plenty of idiot youtubers that don't understand that a small amount is healthy and too much is not healthy and they appear to be encouraging people to eat salt with reckless abandon and are railing against the campaigns to eat less salt and add less salt to foods. These idiots piss me off and I'd happily join a mailing list and go vote down all of their videos.
Often you don't need to watch more than a few seconds of a video to know that it is 100% trash and click-bait and or doesn't have anything useful or particularly entertaining to say. Often the vote-count is a good indicator of that and can act as a quick confirmation that the video isn't worth watching any further.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
If you downvote something you hide it, removing it from view and suppressing free speech. Since you have frequently demanded that speech be free from silencing by corporations (generally speech from the right wing, oddly enough, not much demand for the scum of the left to be heard as opposed to the scum of the right), why aren't you upbraiding these mobs for trying to silence speech rather than counter it.
Or do you ascribe to the modified Voltair: quote voltair to protect the speech you like whilst still virtue signalling that you hate this speech, yet are still protecting it, so virtuous you are.
Just like you have conspiracy to commit a crime and hiring a murderer is just as illegal as doing the murder (and having child porn on your PC just as illegal as fucking children IRL), heck threats are actionable too, you can have hate speech.
If you were HONEST about your ideology (you are not: you only use it to protect the speech of people saying things you like) you'd be fighting to let Imam's preach "Death to the infidels" and for the release of Abu Hamsa et al since they did not actually harm anyone. Only exhorted people to do so.
And, unlike with Youtube, censored BY GOVERNMENT.
How about copyrights? infringing speech. All the IP laws do that.
How about all the conspiracy charges? Just TALKING about robbing a bank or killing a politician is illegal.
Imams scream DEATH TO THE INFIDEL and you are 100% fine with them being deported to the USA to face the crime of speaking their mind.
The only difference is you like the laws against speech like "I am going to gut you like a pig" and you LIKE the speech "Jews will not replace us", so you want the freedom to speak curtailed where the law says it is but NOT where it infringes in the speech of those you support.
Both trump supporters, both leaping to the unassigned "idiots with bad intent" being trump.
The reason why you are so raging at trump being claimed as being an idiot with bad intent is that you know he is both. So you "know" that any mention of an idiot with bad intent MUST be trump, even if the poster doesn't even think that.
Fuck, they could be thinking of Putin.
Could be that things like Youtube rewind was just completely fucking terrible and not a ton of people liked it.
So a bunch of people decide that they don't like something, go to YouTube and click on "Dislike". It seems to be working as intended.
But there isn't a dislike button yet.
Oh wait... they meant for the videos. Who the hell cares about that?! I just want one for disliking comments. Please let me know when that happens.
He never invoked the 1st amendment, you sniveling fucking moron.
The freedom of human expression isn't a legal matter. It's an ethical and moral one.
Fascists like you understand this. You just cloak yourselves in the language of progressivism, while donning a black hood and club on your college campus.
You will be defeated.
Why the fuck would a solution that reinforces echo chambers be remotely sensible or good for society?
Your suggestion is utterly fucking idiotic.
...which is exactly how the NPCs want it, as they can wield that cudgel against their enemies--or not wield it against their allies--as they see fit, because some animals are more equal than others.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
While downvotes can cost views, demonetization is an even bigger issue. Thenderf00t recently analyzed how his videos were often demonetized. Even videos about electrons. Probably by feminists or creationists who don't like his videos on those topics. It's possible to appeal, but by then views have peaked and you've missed most of the income.
Someone needs to start an APK fan club. He's the ultimate anti troll!
If you don't want to be "deplatformed" by a bank, don't use a loan to fund your operation. ISPs are more tricky in a non-neutrality world but if all American ISPs hate you, try Russia.
So, an echo chamber?
It is not a nebulous definition. However, it is not applied equally.
"There are two genders" is now hate speech. "Learn to code" is now harassment. Both are against the "rules" of Twitter and summarily banned ten minutes in, their proponents questioned by police. "Holding up kids at the border because they are crossing it illegally" is also the greatest crime ever committed.
"We want to butcher the Covington Kids for smirking" however is not. Disney producers can actually produce gruesome bloody and disguting drawings and title them "MAGA kids go head first in the woodchipper" and still keep their accounts and continue to produce childrens movies for Disney. "Killing kids inside the womb because mommy doesn't want them" however is to them suddenly very fine.
You certainly notice a pattern and an agenda there.
Prager U has never had a video pulled for hate speech. That's just the excuse snowflakes use when their wildly unpopular ideas drive revenue away. Prager U was pulled because of copyright issues. Turns out you can't wholesale steal somebody else's video and edit out the context to make them look bad. This strategy has removed an entire wing of weapons from the right, who ultimately know their ideas are so bad you have to be tricked into them. So they go and edit other videos with clever editing to make others make false claims.
They were demonetized because advertisers HATE losing viewers due to the content as well. Prager U has proven that most people will stop watching as soon as one of their ads or videos come on, and advertisers have noticed that. They also do it to left leaning organizations, but strangely enough you never hear those organizations cry about being censored; they just adopt a new strategy.
I know I've blocked Prager U from my home. My kids don't need to be indoctrinated into a death cult lite.
Says the anonymous coward