Skip to content

YouTube's Latest Update Shows That Online Monoculture Is Dead

Technology
67 50 0
  • This post did not contain any content.

    Andy Warhol was so close, in the future everyone won’t be famous for 15 minutes. Instead everyone will be famous to 15 people.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Part of me expected that today is the day the subscribe button went away.

  • I think they are driving the right further to the right and the left further to the left.

    Not even "further". They are driving to as many splits as possible, as opposed to ideological differences.

    Difference is good, because two different systems can, eh, have kids. One can disassemble them, mix them, see how it works, make thought experiments, discuss again and again. A split doesn't involve the kids making process.

    A split is different from a discussion in the sense that you use a prepared set of shibbolets to tell friend from foe, not leaving any room for synthesis.

    When you have that split mentality, you punish attempts at discussion by others by interpreting it always as the biggest split possible, - as if it were worse than actually being a foe applying the same split approach, just like you.

    Totalitarian societies usually poison and punish and implicitly tax discussion, but they are always welcoming to splits. And that split mentality endures far longer than the original totalitarian regime, usually. Look at Germans, not the eastern ones, but all of them, - their political and group thinking still reminisces Nazi propaganda. Israel and Palestine are one good example, but this can be seen in many other things.

    Which is also why I don't entirely align with the idea of "new middle ages". The mechanisms we are seeing are from 1930s, not 1330s and not even 1630s.

    Nazis were a bunch of tough but dumb veterans and their conservative sponsors, doing things the way obvious for these groups.

    Bolsheviks were a bunch of thieves and college dropouts and their small-noble and intelligentsia sympathizers, doing things the ways obvious for them (that crappy Soviet elitism existed because the sympathizer layer wanted some sort of Plato's state with a "better" subset of society, ya knaw, the right kind of professors, the right kind of poets, the right kind of journalists, necessarily social sciences as you see, teaching everyone else to live (if you've read "Heart of a dog", professor Preobrazhensky is very clearly that, he's not a positive character in any way, he's one of those people who liked social inequality, just felt markets are a wrong way to decide who is where in the hierarchy), and ex-Soviet societies still are divided into "the popular Bolshevik" view of taking everything from the "enemies of the people" and dividing it as the main solution to every problem, and "the elitist Bolshevik" view of "the wrong people that can't be allowed to make democratic decisions", the funniest part is that these mostly intersect in the same people, these are two sides of the same coin). They too did things the was obvious for these groups. By the way, thieves and murderers are usually the same kind of personality, and failures tend to use power they have to take revenge, and intelligentsia of the described kind.

    These modern idiots are a bunch of piss-smelling mommy's cheats like Zuckerberg or Bezos who managed to capture a new industry, and their (kinda elitist) professor-cultured predecessors who think that the treatment of the industry that allowed mommy's cheats to do that should be maintained, and all of them willingly reinforcing the hierarchy of them, a relatively small group of "founders and visionaries", deciding where it'll go, but I beg your pardon, there's no technical reason for any decisions to depend on what they want. I'm certain most of these people are actually not technically more competent or understanding of the domain areas than many other people who've never were anywhere close to that "Silicon Valley society".

    But still all of them used different, but similar in effects and covered areas, means of propaganda. Eh, I think I've recently seen a wonderful article about various ways in which human psyche adapts for totalitarianism and abuse, except I suspect it was in Russian.

    So - IMHO one can draw an analogy between early USSR with Bolsheviks like Stalin (the thief kind) and Bolsheviks like Lenin (the elitist intelligentsia kind) and the tech industry, where Zuckerberg, Brin and Bezos would be like the former, while Linus Torvalds, big people of Microsoft, and so on - all very different people, it's about culture of the resulting "elite", - would be the latter. But combined together, as some community with a vision of the future, they are pigs. They look at the world as if it were their place to decide what it will be.

    So all I have to say is - in the last ~30 years we have evolved paternalism of a very harmful kind, combined with the split mentality, combined with a structure where paternalists are in power in a hierarchical system. It doesn't matter that those paternalists employ anti-paternalist slogans and say anti-paternalist words. What matters is what they do.

    In any case - in 2012 the former group were in appearances very "liberal", now they are the opposite thing, and some known FOSS personalities have more right-wing views than you'd expect from their public appearances (which are very liberal). But all this doesn't matter.

    What matters is that for a sane discussion about politics, for example, you should have participants equally ready to accept ancap, fascism, ancom, Confucian monarchy, Buddhist theocracy, direct democracy for every decision, Trotskyist Soviet system (no professional state bureaucrats, all state apparatus roles are filled with random citizens elected\sortitioned by councils, perpetually rotated, no professional military commanders\sergeants, the same thing, and the problem of expertise is solved by good enough common education), I can go on.

    Point is that you don't get into an argument in order to tell friend from foe, you get into an argument to synthesize something new and wonderful. An argument is like a blind date. Why the hell even spend your time on telling friends from foes, unless you are taking notes for a very big kill list, but that wouldn't be good faith behavior.

    So if you think something, you might think differently after the argument.

    Except this good faith behavior I described is dangerous when there are a lot of cowards in the society and the legal protections don't work (you sort of irritate people who'd like a hierarchical society with non-transparent concentrated power, because power is concentrated by groups, and those groups accept new people of their kind, and thus such people have a chance of getting a piece of that power and don't like you dogfooding mechanisms for preventing such a system).

  • This post did not contain any content.

    They've removed down notes, date posted in placeholders, and the ability to properly alter monetization the way you want to...seems like a competitive product could pop in at any time. Sadly, the only competition would have to come from another equally shitty company with a massive infrastructure footprint.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    I've been using YouTube as my primary source of entertainment since 2009. I don't think I've looked at the trending page even once.

    Has the internet ever been a 'monoculture'?

  • I've noticed that with Facebook. Facebook will push conflict to my feed excessively hard, to the point that spending not even 30 seconds there will start making me angry. I refuse to use Facebook at all anymore.

    Delete it. Do it.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    I got rid of YT and replaced it with PeerTube and Nebula. Am I a bit less entertained? Sure. Am I a lot less angry? Yup.

    I’m also learning a lot more because I was forced to find new content and new creators which was actually really fun.

  • I got rid of YT and replaced it with PeerTube and Nebula. Am I a bit less entertained? Sure. Am I a lot less angry? Yup.

    I’m also learning a lot more because I was forced to find new content and new creators which was actually really fun.

    Genuinly asking this question. Aren't the ones on nebula the ones that make you mad? Maybe that's not the best way to put it but the ones like philosophy tube are the ones that got me started down my political path and they are still super political.

  • Genuinly asking this question. Aren't the ones on nebula the ones that make you mad? Maybe that's not the best way to put it but the ones like philosophy tube are the ones that got me started down my political path and they are still super political.

    I think Jacob Geller and wendigoon are on nebula and they don't make political content. I'm sure there are others

  • I got rid of YT and replaced it with PeerTube and Nebula. Am I a bit less entertained? Sure. Am I a lot less angry? Yup.

    I’m also learning a lot more because I was forced to find new content and new creators which was actually really fun.

    Nebula has certainly improved but I still think they need to put more effort into getting new creators that aren't political or news. I just did a skim through their uploads lists for various topics and news and/or political (or political ish) content is still the most active. Topics like technology and gaming see far less uploads.

  • I got rid of YT and replaced it with PeerTube and Nebula. Am I a bit less entertained? Sure. Am I a lot less angry? Yup.

    I’m also learning a lot more because I was forced to find new content and new creators which was actually really fun.

    What is Nebula? Is it literally just a YouTube alternative, or is there more to it? I did some googling and couldn't find much. But they do seem to have a few creators I like.

  • I got rid of YT and replaced it with PeerTube and Nebula. Am I a bit less entertained? Sure. Am I a lot less angry? Yup.

    I’m also learning a lot more because I was forced to find new content and new creators which was actually really fun.

    any peertube creators you can recommend that make long form highly edited content?

  • I got rid of YT and replaced it with PeerTube and Nebula. Am I a bit less entertained? Sure. Am I a lot less angry? Yup.

    I’m also learning a lot more because I was forced to find new content and new creators which was actually really fun.

    Why did YT make you angry? I haven’t experienced it yet. I block content I’m not interested in and it goes away.

  • I've been using YouTube as my primary source of entertainment since 2009. I don't think I've looked at the trending page even once.

    Has the internet ever been a 'monoculture'?

    Exactly. I have my own interests and I just stick to that. Arts and crafts and dog grooming videos haven’t made me angry.

  • What is Nebula? Is it literally just a YouTube alternative, or is there more to it? I did some googling and couldn't find much. But they do seem to have a few creators I like.

    Youtube alternative with focus on educational creators. It doesn't have an engagement algorithm and it claims to compensate creators better.

  • Why did YT make you angry? I haven’t experienced it yet. I block content I’m not interested in and it goes away.

    taking a guess but I already saw some other comments on another thread mention this: The chart boys in any corps will see Engagement == Profit. Thus they will tune their recommendations solely for that. And if you aren't bothered about properly policing your video upload platform the end result is highly divisive content thats "not boring".

    Divisive content makes people angry so they engage in comments.

    i used to be on reddit. And I used to get into "debates" that devolved into a slap fight and make me angry about the people who intentionally or unintentionally riled me up with outrageous (real or my own perception) opinions.

    While lemmy also has slap fights, I feel like the lack of an "algorithm" tuned for engagement prevents continuous fueling of the fire, metaphorically speaking.

  • What is Nebula? Is it literally just a YouTube alternative, or is there more to it? I did some googling and couldn't find much. But they do seem to have a few creators I like.

    its a paid platform where engagement (i.e bickering in the comments section) is near absent. And the content is allowed to address themes that make main stream media blush.

  • keep showing viewers the videos that we think they’ll love

    We'll keep profiling you and target you with videos that drive engagement, so largely things that inspire rage or conflict between you and others. Extra points if we drive your political and social views further to the right.

    Youtube has just one priority, it wants you to watch as much monetised content as possible. If you watch and engage with those types of videos, it'll suggest them to you.

    I don't, and I never see them recommended either - here's my youtube homepage right now.
    DIY, electronics, cooking, gaming, science, with some weeb stuff sprinkled in - exactly what I'd expect.

  • I've been using YouTube as my primary source of entertainment since 2009. I don't think I've looked at the trending page even once.

    Has the internet ever been a 'monoculture'?

    The trending page of YT is like the r/all of Reddit. If I want to see some stuff I couldn't care less about, that's where I'll find it. I have no idea who actually uses that, but I've never found anything of value there.

  • taking a guess but I already saw some other comments on another thread mention this: The chart boys in any corps will see Engagement == Profit. Thus they will tune their recommendations solely for that. And if you aren't bothered about properly policing your video upload platform the end result is highly divisive content thats "not boring".

    Divisive content makes people angry so they engage in comments.

    i used to be on reddit. And I used to get into "debates" that devolved into a slap fight and make me angry about the people who intentionally or unintentionally riled me up with outrageous (real or my own perception) opinions.

    While lemmy also has slap fights, I feel like the lack of an "algorithm" tuned for engagement prevents continuous fueling of the fire, metaphorically speaking.

    sounds like you made some big progress in life

  • Using Clouds for too long might have made you incompetent

    Technology technology
    82
    158 Stimmen
    82 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    R
    Ah. OK. Yep, people lie in their CV's.
  • best Head Shop Online

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 79 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    22 Aufrufe
    D
    Right? The surprise would be if they weren't doing that.
  • IRS tax filing software released to the people as free software

    Technology technology
    14
    288 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    54 Aufrufe
    P
    Only if you're a scumbag/useful idiot.
  • 48 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    90 Aufrufe
    mrjgyfly@lemmy.worldM
    Does that run the risk of leading to a future collapse of certain businesses, especially if their expenses remain consistently astronomical like OpenAI? Please note I don’t actually know—not trying to be cheeky with this question. Genuinely curious.
  • Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    243 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.
  • 21 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Instacart CEO Fidji Simo is joining OpenAI as CEO of Applications

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    20 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    18 Aufrufe
    paraphrand@lemmy.worldP
    overseeing product development for Facebook Video So she’s the one who oversaw the misleading Facebook Video numbers that destroyed a whole swath of websites?