Comment by ssl-3
14 hours ago
My YouTube feed is pretty good; it's full of technical discourse on topics that I enjoy learning about, ranging from electronics hacking to civil engineering. That's probably the result of a long number of years of continuous training:
Good video, with a positive combination of presentation quality and a topic I enjoy? Watch it -- maybe now or later, but it gets watched. Thumbs up. Maybe even subscribe. That's what I'm there for.
Mediocre video, whether due to content or presentation? Watch parts of it, but probably not with any sense of completeness. No rating.
Bad video, with content I don't enjoy or with off-putting presentation? Stop watching. Thumbs down, and/or back out to use three-dot menu and "Not interested"
Bad ragebait scaremongering video with emotionally-distressing title? No watching at all. Three-dot menu and "Don't recommend this channel."
---
I get a lot of good stuff. Some mediocre stuff. Very little bad stuff. Almost zero ragebait.
It works well enough that an unfiltered, logged-out view of YouTube is completely and utterly appalling by comparison. That place is fucking awful without training.
(And no ads, because ads have never been a thing for me on YouTube and I experience no compulsion to change that.)
I think that most people make little use of the negative feedback options, mainly because they are more clicks away (dark patterns). A addon that gives them a button next to the thums up could help.
Yeah, perhaps I'm more-willing to put effort into it than some others are and making it easier would help us all out.
I do wonder if the relative inaccessibility of negative feedback paths is due to malfeasance/dark patterns/whatever or just stupidity, though.
If the purpose of YouTube is to show ads to people (it is), then that means maximizing viewership. In this way, it doesn't really matter what people are watching as long as they're actually watching it. More hours of streaming consumption = more hours of ads viewed, and the clock doesn't care if it's positive and enjoyable content or rage-inducing clickbait.
So with meaningful feedback, the good stuff should be able to float up to the top. That would gain viewers, which gains ad placements, which gains money. Everyone wins.
---
Unless, of course, I'm wrong about society. Maybe the majority of potential viewers really do enjoy sitting around and being angry and/or fearful, and find some kind of emotional reward by being incensed.
And clearly, some are: Switching on an AM radio in Anywhere, USA demonstrates this well (the vitriol is off the charts).
I'm just not willing to accept that this represents most people, at least not just yet.
(But if that is an accurate portrayal of the state of things, then: Ragebait means more viewers and more dollars. And thereby, there can be no hope for the platform ever recovering at all. If it pays more to get worse, then it shall simply become worse.)