Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Youtube The Internet

YouTube Co-Founder Predicts 'Decline' of the Platform Following Removal of Dislikes (theverge.com) 125

Posted by BeauHD from the universally-disliked-changes dept.
Last week, YouTube announced a controversial decision to make the "dislike" count on videos private across its platform. Not only did the move upset many Slashdotters, but it upset the third co-founder of YouTube, Jawed Karim, too. According to The Verge, Karim suggests that the move "will lead to YouTube's decline." From the report: "Why would YouTube make this universally disliked change? There is a reason, but it's not a good one, and not one that will be publicly disclosed," writes Karim. "The ability to easily and quickly identify bad content is an essential feature of a user-generated content platform. Why? Because not all user-generated content is good."

Karim has been getting his own message out in an unusual way: by editing the description to the first video ever uploaded to YouTube, a banal clip titled "Me at the zoo" which stars the 25-year-old Karim himself. Karim originally edited the description of the video a few days ago to read: "When every YouTuber agrees that removing dislikes is a stupid idea, it probably is. Try again, YouTube [face palm emoji]." But this morning he changed this description once again to give a more detailed condemnation: "The ability to easily and quickly identify bad content is an essential feature of a user-generated content platform," writes Karim. "Why? Because not all user-generated content is good. It can't be. In fact, most of it is not good. And that's OK. [...] The process works, and there's a name for it: the wisdom of the crowds. The process breaks when the platform interferes with it. Then, the platform invariably declines. Does YouTube want to become a place where everything is mediocre?"

In his statement today, Karim compares the video in which Matt Koval, YouTube's "creator liason," announced the removal of dislikes to infamous footage of US soldier Jeremiah Denton, who was captured during the Vietnam War. In 1966, Denton was forced to give a television interview by his captors, during which he blinked in Morse code to spell out the word "torture." You can read Karim's full statement in the description of this video.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Co-Founder Predicts 'Decline' of the Platform Following Removal of Dislikes More

YouTube Co-Founder Predicts 'Decline' of the Platform Following Removal of Dislikes

Comments Filter:

  • The real decline (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I've noticed a lot of YouTubers have a backup on Odysee. However, they post things they know won't get them banned on YouTube, but post a full set of videos on Odysee. If you are following a particular channel won't you gravitate to the platform providing a full playlist?

    • Re:The real decline (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2021 @06:39PM (#61997569)

      won't you gravitate to the platform providing a full playlist?

      Most people will gravitate to the platform listed first in their search engine. Since Google controls the search engine results, YouTube wins.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ELCouz ( 1338259 )
        I can smell the antitrust lawsuit in 3...2...1...

        • Re:The real decline (Score:4, Informative)

          by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2021 @08:50PM (#61997821)

          That lawsuit is about 15 years overdo. Don't hold your breath.

          • That could be a pretty messy lawsuit. At this point I would bet search results are probably returned by something that looks more like a neural network than some elseifs. While Google clearly has the ability to interfere and mold the outcome, it is hard to prove they ever do this without leaked internal memos because it is not like the output can be externally verified and it is entirely possible that no single person even fully understands the code that controls the algorithm.

        • You do understand Google is one of the biggest lobbyists in Congress, right? There will be no lawsuits

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Aubz ( 7986666 )
        Speaking from personal experience I follow my favorite creators on none YouTube providers as a matter of principle after all of the channel burnings YouTube has done. The creative and original/smart users have pretty much all left YouTube already. Bitchute, Odysee and Rumble do not do the assburgerers thing of assuming that they are right and everyone else is wrong, as Google does, and that is the correct attitude. Only actually illegal content should be banned not opinions that YouTube management don't l

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Sadly many of the good channels are not on those services. There are no ad-free clients for Android TV either (SmartTubeNext for YouTube, if you were wondering).

          Odysee does have a few of the creators I follow, like Adrien's Digital Basement. He has 100x as many subscribers on YouTube though, and that means most of the comments and discussion are there. Odysee's comments on his videos are a barren wasteland in comparison.

          I had a look Bitchute and it seems to be 90% right-wing political videos, lots of stuff

          • Hmm...I'd not heard of Odysee before.

            I'll have to give it a look.

            On mobile is there an Odysee app or just access it through a browser?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              I don't know, and I can't be bothered to go look because everything on there that is of any value is also on YouTube.

      • Most people will gravitate to the platform listed first in their search engine. Since Google controls the search engine results, YouTube wins.

        That's like saying all users click the top result of the search without looking at the title. The reality is if you search for something specific users will click on the title they see as most relevant. But that is ultimately neither here nor there. Very few people look for a video using Google. They type Youtube in the address bar, or open the Youtube app on their phone, or open the Youtube app on the TV and then click the search button.

        When people go to Google it is either:
        a) they specifically don't want

  • Disclose it! (Score:4, Informative)

    by mjperson ( 160131 ) <mjperson@mit.edu> on Wednesday November 17, 2021 @06:31PM (#61997557)

    Twice in his comments and writing he says something along the lines of, "There is a reason, but it's not a good one, and not one that will be publicly disclosed"

    So, disclose it! Put it out there plainly so everyone can read it and has to think about it. Enough innuendo. Since YouTube won't, people in the know who aren't happy have to.

    • Re:Disclose it! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2021 @06:49PM (#61997591)

      The reason is $$$.

      The dislikes make it easy to identify good content and avoid bad content. If the dislikes are hidden, viewers have to wallow through more crap to see the content they want.

      This means more ad views.

      I recently searched for "Jacob Blake shooting". Many of the videos with "Jacob Blake shooting" in the title don't show the shooting or have it buried behind 15 minutes of vacuous commentary and thus have many dislikes. So it was easy for me to avoid them. Without the visible dislikes, I would have had to filter through a lot more crap, generating revenue for YouTube.

      • Re:Disclose it! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by PinkyGigglebrain ( 730753 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2021 @06:55PM (#61997601)

        Without the visible dislikes, I would have had to filter through a lot more crap, generating revenue for YouTube.

        And making it harder to find the truth under all that crap.

        If you can't censor something outright you can just make it harder for people to find.

      • It Doesn't really (Score:2, Interesting)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
        Likes or dislikes are the same thing to YouTube. All they care about is engagement when it comes to the most important thing which is whether they recommend your video to somebody else. And the reason for that is controversial videos with lots of likes and dislikes are more likely to be watched. How do I know? Because YouTube doesn't care why you're watching they just care that you're watching, and more importantly watching their ads. That's why YouTubers will say leave a like if you like it and leave a dis
        • What makes you think the pressure comes from advertisers?

          You cant upvote or downvote the actual advertisements. You can only pray that the "skip" button appears before you rage quit.

          Here is how I see this like/dislike issue.

          Youtube, as an entity, benefits from both likes and dislikes, and that like and dislike bombing happens but not enough for youtube to care about its direct effects. Even if its happening to hundreds of videos a day thats just such a pisshole in the snowbank that is youtube to be a

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tailhook ( 98486 )

        The dislikes make it easy to identify good content and avoid bad content. If the dislikes are hidden, viewers have to wallow through more crap to see the content they want.

        While that's plausible I don't think that's the reason. Your reason would at least be honorable in the sense that it's just more money grubbing.

        The real reason is their preferred content makers on YouTube don't like getting ratioed. They bitch and moan at YouTube when they post some wildly unpopular crap and earn 10:1 downvotes and the powers that be at YouTube are tired of the bitching. It's small and petty and thus aligns perfectly with the mentality that now runs all of big tech.

      • The reason is $$$.

        The dislikes make it easy to identify good content and avoid bad content. If the dislikes are hidden, viewers have to wallow through more crap to see the content they want.

        This means more ad views.

        I recently searched for "Jacob Blake shooting". Many of the videos with "Jacob Blake shooting" in the title don't show the shooting or have it buried behind 15 minutes of vacuous commentary and thus have many dislikes. So it was easy for me to avoid them. Without the visible dislikes, I would have had to filter through a lot more crap, generating revenue for YouTube.

        Possible.... but that would be really poor decision making on Youtube's part.

        One of the reason Youtube is so dominant is it's the place where you know you're going to find what you're looking for. Removing that feature is the one way they could be sure to start driving users to a competitor.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Kisai ( 213879 )

        Nope. Dislikes do not indicate bad content. Dislikes only indicate petty jerks or bots visited the video, not that they watched it.

        If you want to avoid watching "filler crap" on youtube, hide the channels from people who create that kind of content so the algorithm treats it as such.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Dislikes actually help videos. You sometimes hear people in the videos telling users to like or dislike, because either way it helps them get ranked higher by the algorithm.

          YouTube is all about engagement. They don't care why you watch a video, only that you watch it. If a video gets a lot of dislikes it means people watched enough of it to decide they didn't like it.

          That's also why YouTube cares about bots and dislike mobs. They are screwing with YouTube's engagement metrics.

          • Not necessarily. It can just mean that some influenza said "XX is mean to me" and a flood of fanboys heads over to that channel to carpet bomb dislikes.

        • Nope. Dislikes do not indicate bad content. Dislikes only indicate petty jerks or bots visited the video, not that they watched it.

          I think this is how Slashdot works. On YouTube, many dislikes is usually a pretty good quality indicator.

        • > Dislikes may ALSO indicate bad content.

          FTFY.

          One example: The Verge shitty PC Build "Guide" video. [youtube.com] It had massive downvotes due to how bad it was.

          The Verge even started abusing copyright [youtube.com] to avoid criticism.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        I opened YouTube in a private browsing window and searched for "Jacob Blake shooting", and the first video in the search results was the unedited raw cell phone footage of the event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

        Perhaps you were logged in, and had not verified your age. In that case YouTube will rank videos that are not rated "over 18 only" higher in the search results, because you can actually watch them.

      • That's not going to work, because if I have to wade through crap to finally see something I want to see, I could just go back to cable TV.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by v1 ( 525388 )

      "[[wildly popular company]] Co-Founder Predicts 'Decline' Following [[any recent event]]."

      These are almost universally worth ignoring. The few that actually end up being right aren't any better than your average back-alley gypsy's crystal ball.

    • So, disclose it! Put it out there plainly so everyone can read it and has to think about it. Enough innuendo.

      Jesus man read between the lines. Alphabet is a for profit company and needs content creators to feel comfortable enough to continue to produce their garbage.

      That's not difficult. Not everything needs to be disclosed to be well and truly understood by someone reading it. If I say "then she invited me in for coffee if you know what I mean", and you reply "No, what do you mean" then I wasn't the problem in this conversation.

  • Good. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by memory_register ( 6248354 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2021 @06:47PM (#61997587)
    Vimeo, Odysee, Rumble, bring them all in. YouTube has grown fat and lazy and woke, and the market will sort them out.

    • Remember Gab and Parler? Once again don't hold your breath.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by EmoryM ( 2726097 )
      Every so often Karen Wojcicki will start fuming about a joke somebody makes - how absolutely dare they - and I noticed creators have started going to Rumble until she calms down. Pretty cool.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Tom ( 822 )

      YouTube is the cash cow. Its decline will be slow enough for those behind this short-term-profit-long-term-decline decision to cash out. There's the real problem of current capitalism right there: No incentive to think about the long term.

    • and woke, and the market will sort them out.

      Youtube generates no content. It isn't what has grown woke. Sadly for your point, it's the market which has grown woke and the people looking for woke content. Youtube's market share reflects how they are being "sorted out" given that "woke culture" is nothing new.

      • YouTube censors content.

        Theyâ(TM)ve censored a ton of anti-woke commentary. Gone. Poof.

        • [Citation needed]. There's a shitload of anti-woke commentary on Youtube. I'm willing to bet you the comment wasn't censored for anything "wokeness" but rather that there's a significant overlap in the Venndiagram of people who complain about wokeness, and toxic fucktards spreading nothing but bullshit, hate and abuse, the latter of which Youtube removes all the time regardless if it's pro or anti wokeness.

  • Tapering off (Score:3)

    by ThatGype ( 5884680 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2021 @06:58PM (#61997609)
    Now this just takes the mickey. If they've any sense they'll reverse it. I'd rather we not lose YouTube, it will be a shame to lose 1.6 decades of videos on every subject imaginable. Often times I still find pleasant surprises, disturbing animations, windows to the past.

    But I haven't high hopes the course will reverse. It has been a consistent decline since they removed the customisable user pages, removed 5* ratings and integrated Google+.

  • I'm doubtful (Score:2, Informative)

    by godrik ( 1287354 )

    I know the removal of dislike rubbed some people the wrong way.
    Personally, I never actually looked at the number of like and dislike on any video. When you search for a video on youtube, it does tell you the number of views, but it does not tell you the like/dislike until you click on it. (I suppose it does not tell you the dislike at all anymore.)

    I never cared about it, and I guess that most people don't look at it either. So saying "youtube will decline because no dislike count" seems like a "I don't like

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      This guy clearly lives in la la land as he assumes that dislikes are based on quality. While discussions like /. have some justification in positive and negative ratings, there is no justification for suc ratings on YouTube. It is a school children type of activity. A way to satisfy to users ego that needs to condemn things they disagree with.
    • In the past, YouTube did tell you the like/dislike ratio as a thumbnail overlay. Naturally, that feature was useful so they removed it.

      • We are going to profit seek ourselves (the US) to death. We are trying to make that sleighride downhill as fast as possible.

        Well it sucks for US, the rest of the world is watching and hopefully taking notes of our follies and doing whatever they can to avoid them.

  • I use the service, have tons of friends who do, and none of us even use the dislike button.

    Maybe he hangs out with nutters and extremists that were radicalized by TFG?

  • It's pretty easy to differentiate good content from bad, if not from just looking at how it presents itself, then certainly from the first 10 seconds of playback. If the channel has a few bad videos, then it's a channel that doesn't interest me and I'll probably ignore it from that point forward. I never even notice the dislikes.

    • I've gone many minutes into a video where what the guy is saying seems right .. for instance stuff about ancient civilizations .. and many minutes in the content completely turns .. nows hes talking about the alien influence on those ancient peoples ...

      Dislike is appropriate, and communicating my dislike with the world, also appropriate.

    • Except to get to those 10 seconds of playback, you first have to watch 20 seconds of ads.

      Which is why YouTube is doing this.

  • So is it time to go to floatplane?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by EmoryM ( 2726097 )
      When I can go to floatplane.com, click a thumbnail and watch a video then maybe it will be time for floatplane.

  • Now I have a voice. A louder voice. Because now not only do I need to post "DISLIKE" under comments I disagree with, I also have to post it under the videos.

  • Drama (Score:3)

    by peppepz ( 1311345 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2021 @08:04PM (#61997759)

    Does YouTube want to become a place where everything is mediocre?

    Because today YouTube is the quintessence of quality content; and it's only thanks to the fact that nutters can deface videos that tell things they don't want to hear.
    "Me at the zoo", for instance, I'd put it near Citizen Kane.

  • ...the over sensitive snowflake generation. Some weak lame brain cried over the number of dislikes and cried like a little baby. Parents the past 30 years have been raising over sensitive little babies. These poor clowns will suffer the rest of their lives because life is not always fun or fair.

    • No, dislikes allowed people to infer a video wasn't very good, and thus they wouldn't click on it.

      If they don't click on it, YouTube can't show ads before the video.

      Also, it means clicking on more videos until you can find a good one on the subject you're interested in. Which means more pre-video ads.

      As usual, making the UX worse is about money.

  • Wow did you know that... (Score:3)

    by bug_hunter ( 32923 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2021 @08:26PM (#61997789)

    The removal of the dislike button on YouTube is because of the extreme left or the extreme right?
    It's true, just check every other comment here on Slashdot to prove it.

    Make sure to avoid all discussing any pros/cons of removing the dislike button and instead focus on which side is fascist instead.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Personally I think this could make YouTube better. The problem is that the dislike button is too vague and when people click on it there are too many different meanings.

      For example, sometimes people dislike videos that are actually good just because they don't want to be bombarded with suggestions for similar videos. Yes there is incognito mode, but on Android and TV interfaces it's too much effort to bother with.

      There is also the problem of mobs who don't actually watch the videos but just dislike them. It

    • The removal of the dislike button on YouTube is because of the extreme left or the extreme right?

      Of course. Centralists aren't the ones who try to stifle discussions.

    • The trolls come in all types; left, right, up, down, smart and stupid.

  • Not the rampant demonetization, repeated strikes for no reason, poor support, bad DMCA takedowns, excessive, repetitive ads, poor moderation standards, the tendency to keep putting radical crap in my feed that I've repeatedly blocked, abusive behavior towards creators....

    But the removal of dislikes... that's what will drive people away.

    Right.

  • Youtube needs to decline (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nocturrne ( 912399 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2021 @09:13PM (#61997855)

    Some things need to die. It's time to move on to a decentralized platform, with no State control or political bias.

  • All leftist/woke/etc policies lead to decline.

    • No, dislikes allowed people to infer a video wasn't very good, and thus they wouldn't click on it.

      If they don't click on it, YouTube can't show ads before the video.

      Also, it means clicking on more videos until you can find a good one on the subject you're interested in. Which means more pre-video ads.

      As usual, making the UX worse is about money.

  • As long as there is no real competitive alternative there will not be a steep decline. People are not that pragmatic.
  • On good videos, dislikes are just background noise. The proportion of positives to negatives generally reflects the video quality - a 90% is a good sign. If it's less, then we're entering clickbait territory. If it's less than 60% then there is something seriously wrong with this video. Hiding that information or preventing people having a negative opinion about it is just a dick move and I can well believe that it would turn people off of YouTube.

    As a semi-aside Netflix used to let viewers rate content a

    • If it's less than 60% then there is something seriously wrong with this video.

      Or it's good, but it pisses off someone unethical who buys thousands of dislikes to push it down in the rankings (happened to EEVBlog several times when he took on the right scammers)
      That's my not quite a conspiracy theory: YouTube has some internal metrics that show a majority of likes are genuine but a majority of dislikes are coming from bots and click farms, and they chose the lowest-effort possible way to deal with it. Who cares if it annoys viewers and creators? We're Google and they're not.

  • In real life, ignoring something is the most effective way to show distaste and I suspect itâ(TM)s a more effective method than a dislike button. Itâ(TM)s not as satisfying and it doesnâ(TM)t give people the ability to âoepile onâ, but it works. Insult someone or express your hate of someoneâ(TM)s work in real life, you get resistance and pushback. Ignore them, and the behavior dies out.

  • YouTube has far bigger problems
      - Constant obvious scam adverts
      - Too often recommending videos I've already seen
      - Too many clickbait videos that are not what title says
      - Too many deliberate disinformation videos
      - Too many scammer commenter
      - Too many abuse commenter

  • The only thing that could keep YouTube from simply grasping hegemony over user created content and its delivery on the internet is YouTube itself.

    And so far, it seems they're hellbent on succeeding in this endeavor.

  • Oh really? The last time I checked, mob mentality usually equated to lemmings jumping off cliffs. The most recent example that is still fresh in most people's minds is Jan 6 and then the subsequent remorse by individuals who participated. Most simply got caught up in the moment and the rhetoric. Mob mentality is a real phenomenon but the behavior doesn't excuse criminal actions. It does show that crowds lack wisdom though.

Slashdot Top Deals

My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by the seashore.

Close