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.
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.
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
5: isn't "mending your ways" a good thing?
Mending is good if done appropriately.
Appropriate: We were wrong to use wiggling women's butts to market our blades. WE were part of the problem.
Inappropriate: If you have a penis, YOU are the problem. Because we say so.
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 ;(.
>"It's not a difficult concept to get where freedom of expression rights begin and end - your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
Speech [and video] doesn't swing fists at your nose. That is not a valid comparison. A better one is "Sticks and Stones..."
You can't have freedom of speech AND "hate speech" laws/rules. Pick one or the other (I am firmly for the former).
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.
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
Vast majority of serial murderers are also created by single mothers abusing their kids.
https://www.independent.co.uk/...
Funny how that is rarely mentioned in those PSAs.
"hate speech" = anything a Corporate Progressive nazi asshole disagrees with.
One week after the ad, there was a nation wide 35% discount on all their products. Posters everywhere (EU country). ...just like the science predicted. I told them more than a decade ago. Nobody listened.
I have three blades left which I will use quickly and switch.
The ad was one of the most revolting things I've seen....right when my nephew had his nth anxiety/anger/suicidal crisis. 27 yrs old, brought up by tyrannical mother, away from 'toxic masculinity', never left to solve his problems alone....the very thing the ad encouraged. The boy is a wreck. Guess if he turned bitter, confused and aggressive
Btw, his mother left the family for a job in the big city which pays less...she gave up on them. His weak father ( I bleed typing this, we are talking about my beloved cousin) got heart attack at 50 is now crying daily...
The pussification of our sons and grandsons should stop. It does not do any good, particularly to women. My other nephews are two girls in high school. They complain that the boys around them are 'not serious and responsible'. Well, duh! When asking them to give an example of a 'serious man' they always point to someone older than a millennial. This ain't a coincidence.