Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

YouTube to try not publicly displaying the number of dislikes on a video

2 hours ago, MichelPostma said:

 

1. Easy Harassment targeting;  This option, when chosen by creators, signals to the world that they are specifically hurt by the dislikes so that they don't want them displayed (but still want the likes)

 

Just to reiterate- from what we know currently, this will apply to all videos. Of course, that might change, but for now, creators have no choice in the matter.

 

Creators can currently choose to hide both the likes and the dislikes, but not one or the other.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

pythonmegapixel

into tech, public transport and architecture // amateur programmer // youtuber // beginner photographer

Thanks for reading all this by the way!

By the way, my desktop is a docked laptop. Get over it, No seriously, I have an exterrnal monitor, keyboard, mouse, headset, ethernet and cooling fans all connected. Using it feels no different to a desktop, it works for several hours if the power goes out, and disconnecting just a few cables gives me something I can take on the go. There's enough power for all games I play and it even copes with basic (and some not-so-basic) video editing. Give it a go - you might just love it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MichelPostma said:

That's true.

 

Also I fear that this will lead to 2 important things happening which YouTube would not like:

1. Easy Harassment targeting;  This option, when chosen by creators, signals to the world that they are specifically hurt by the dislikes so that they don't want them displayed (but still want the likes). This will make them an easy target for anyone who wants to go out and do some good old cyberbullying as they now have an identifier to go after and a place to attack, as they know that any dislikes, whilst not shown publicly, will still be seen by the creator. 

That's what already happens, again, look at the fallout from gamergate. The default should be to not display likes or dislikes on videos to prevent scraping by third parties first, (which btw even if comments are turned off, they can all be retrieved via API) , and there should be a requirement to have actually watched the video to leave a like or comment in the first place. 

 

Someone who turns likes off in their videos, doesn't care, or doesn't want that engagement. That's fine, but you deciding to dislike a video because the uploader has opted to disable an engagement metric is just you being petty.

19 hours ago, MichelPostma said:

2. Harder to Identify bad videos; YouTube Rewind, Bad apology videos, Anti-Vax, Scams, Clickbait reaction videos, there are many just plainly bad videos on YouTube which people may click on. Generally a like/dislike ratio helps people to identify whether this video they watch is generally accepted or not. Displaying only likes completely removes this ability.

 

You can report scams and misinformation already, dislikes have nothing to do with that. Dislikes disproportionately penalize smaller creators in discoverability and do absolutely nothing to big ones. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2021 at 2:07 AM, MichelPostma said:

That's true.

 

Also I fear that this will lead to 2 important things happening which YouTube would not like:

1. Easy Harassment targeting;  This option, when chosen by creators, signals to the world that they are specifically hurt by the dislikes so that they don't want them displayed (but still want the likes). This will make them an easy target for anyone who wants to go out and do some good old cyberbullying as they now have an identifier to go after and a place to attack, as they know that any dislikes, whilst not shown publicly, will still be seen by the creator. 

2. Harder to Identify bad videos; YouTube Rewind, Bad apology videos, Anti-Vax, Scams, Clickbait reaction videos, there are many just plainly bad videos on YouTube which people may click on. Generally a like/dislike ratio helps people to identify whether this video they watch is generally accepted or not. Displaying only likes completely removes this ability.

 

To add to what Kisai said:

 

In theory it's harder to identify bad videos, but in practice dislikes are frequently used to trash good videos that bad people want to suppress. Anti-vaxxers will brigade a news video discussing the importance of a new vaccine, for example. Now, those efforts have limited effect, but ideally they'd be discouraged from doing it in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a fairly nuanced topic IMO.

 

1. I don't blame people that people use like-dislike ratio to determine the quality of a video or how dogshizzles it is but at the same time there have been many legit videos that have good information or is fighting against REAL misinformation that get disliked bombed to hell. And there are absolutely god terrible tier videos that have a good like-dislike ratio.

2. I don't blame people saying that removing dislikes is removing criticism or removing feedback from the community and just benefits the creator more. But at the same time, this can also backfire on the creator since many viewers clicking on the video, seeing the dislike ratio gone, can turn them away for obvious reasons.

 

I honestly don't know whether or not this is a good idea. 

Don't call me a nerd, it makes me look slightly smarter than you

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

this is a fairly nuanced topic IMO.

 

1. I don't blame people that people use like-dislike ratio to determine the quality of a video or how dogshizzles it is but at the same time there have been many legit videos that have good information or is fighting against REAL misinformation that get disliked bombed to hell. And there are absolutely god terrible tier videos that have a good like-dislike ratio.

2. I don't blame people saying that removing dislikes is removing criticism or removing feedback from the community and just benefits the creator more. But at the same time, this can also backfire on the creator since many viewers clicking on the video, seeing the dislike ratio gone, can turn them away for obvious reasons.

 

I honestly don't know whether or not this is a good idea. 

I think it’s more likely to be bad than good since hiding information from the public historically very rarely benefits the public.

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what took them so long, after they clearly took money from various corporations like EA, to hide or reset likes/dislikes.

I expect in the future all websites that implement a like/dislike to no longer have a dislike only like buttons. If required they will motivate this with PC politics "no hate buttons", expected to see that aswell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

I think it’s more likely to be bad than good since hiding information from the public historically very rarely benefits the public.

I've also seen some people say that YT is doing this to make themselves look good for advertisers. Doesn't make sense to me tbh. I highly doubt advertisers look at the like-dislike ratio to determine the "ad-friendliness". But let's say that if they did, YT would be in a risky spot since they are technically hiding something from advertisers. 

Don't call me a nerd, it makes me look slightly smarter than you

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

I've also seen some people say that YT is doing this to make themselves look good for advertisers. Doesn't make sense to me tbh. I highly doubt advertisers look at the like-dislike ratio to determine the "ad-friendliness". But let's say that if they did, YT would be in a risky spot since they are technically hiding something from advertisers. 

Oh, they absolutely do. Why do you think Google got slapped hard about the kids content and the consequence is we lost commenting on ALL kids content, even if you were logged in.

 

Advertisers don't want to put ad-spend on videos that are not being watched, and if there is a deep negative sentiment on it, they may also not want to spend on it either, regardless of the reason. Advertisers aren't going to review the videos before advertising on them, because they would only get stale content.

 

At any rate, coming from the advertisers point of view, unless you don't care what your ad spend goes on (eg garbage), then advertising garbage on garbage is how we got to where we did on porn sites and piracy sites. Legitimate advertisers don't want to be associated with this content, and likewise this content is often desparate for any advertising revenue, so garbage is advertised on the sites.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kisai said:

Oh, they absolutely do. Why do you think Google got slapped hard about the kids content and the consequence is we lost commenting on ALL kids content, even if you were logged in.

 

Advertisers don't want to put ad-spend on videos that are not being watched, and if there is a deep negative sentiment on it, they may also not want to spend on it either, regardless of the reason. Advertisers aren't going to review the videos before advertising on them, because they would only get stale content.

 

At any rate, coming from the advertisers point of view, unless you don't care what your ad spend goes on (eg garbage), then advertising garbage on garbage is how we got to where we did on porn sites and piracy sites. Legitimate advertisers don't want to be associated with this content, and likewise this content is often desparate for any advertising revenue, so garbage is advertised on the sites.

 

Do you think advertisers will like the removal of the dislike bar then? Or be against it? Just asking. 

 

I'm assuming that since advertisers do look at the like-dislike bar on YT vids as a huge factor, they are probably going to be against it. 

Don't call me a nerd, it makes me look slightly smarter than you

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Theminecraftaddict555 They probably don't care at all.

All you want with advertisement is reaching your target audience in a effective way without creating brand damaging effects. As this doesn't effect anything related to ads they won't even notice it. Identical people/consumer, identical tracking, identical ad-system.

 

For the direct/backed in it could just get a part of sales process. Send a request, the content creator believes it is valid offer and sends you some statistic. Negotiation continuous from there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

Do you think advertisers will like the removal of the dislike bar then? Or be against it? Just asking. 

 

I'm assuming that since advertisers do look at the like-dislike bar on YT vids as a huge factor, they are probably going to be against it. 

Depends how the advertiser and the algorithms line up. Google berates you for not using it's algorithms and instead wants you to let it decide what videos your ads appear next to/on/pre-roll/interstitial with. Now on the other hand, if you fine-tune it, like you're supposed to, to not waste ad-spend on garbage sites, what you do is isolate large chunks of videos you never want your ads appearing on. For example, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Subway, PizzaHut, etc relatively "non-risky" brands, want to advertise on non-risky content, stuff that no f-bombs appear on, stuff that isn't a scam or misinformation. That isn't driven directly by likes/dislikes, the algorithm uses it to decide what videos have high engagement.

 

So for example, no safe brand would ever advertise on youtube or twitch. Yet brands like Pepsi/Doritos/MountainDew/KFC/TacoBell/Wendys/Arbys/BurgerKing have a pattern of advertising on less-safe content.

 

Know thy audience. Coca Cola and McDonalds want to advertise on the Disney-Nintendo-Apple safe type of content, where as Pepsi and KFC advertise on the Halo, Fortnite, Pupb, Overwatch gaming content because that's what they associate their brand with. Heck there is this entire linking of Doritos and Mountain Dew (both owned by Pepsi) to eSports.

 

At any rate I'm sure smaller advertisers don't want to compete with Coke and Pepsi. Coke and Pepsi have marketing departments, and rarely advertise on small content creators anyway, and explicitly whitelist what their ads appear on for brand-safety. So that leaves small content creators with small advertisers who aren't as picky. This is where the algorithm and engagement metrics come into play.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2021 at 4:02 PM, pythonmegapixel said:

The team at YouTube has announced that they will soon start rolling out UI tweaks which hide the number of dislikes from the user - the mockups suggest that this will simply be replaced by the word "Dislike", as on videos where the creator has manually chosen not to show the numbers publicly.

Creators will still be able to see them and the button will still work, and YouTube have assured us that the dislike button in general is not going away.

 

This is currently an experiment, targeted to a small number of users, though there is no way to opt out.

 

This decision seems to be aimed at reducing dislike-bombing. I personally don't think it will be successful in this aim - after all, the like/dislike ratio will still affect rankings in search and recommendations, and that's what matters, right? - but honestly, it doesn't bother me that this information is being hidden. Creators already have the option to turn it off anyway, and I don't personally pay attention to the dislike number particularly often, unless someone specifically draws my attention to it. Considering all of the awful changes that YouTube has made over the past few years, this is, IMO, quite a benign one.

 

Sources:

From Google's post - https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/104325801?hl=en


Youtube's tweet on the same matter:

https://twitter.com/YouTube/status/1376942486594150405

 

And a news article:

https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/30/youtube-tests-hiding-dislike-counts-on-videos/

 

I sure eventually, someone will make an extension, app, or release code that will show the amount of dislikes again even if YouTube decides to implement this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Awesome84 said:

I sure eventually, someone will make an extension, app, or release code that will show the amount of dislikes again even if YouTube decides to implement this.

How on earth would they do this though? I'm assuming if they wouldn't leave them in the public API...

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

pythonmegapixel

into tech, public transport and architecture // amateur programmer // youtuber // beginner photographer

Thanks for reading all this by the way!

By the way, my desktop is a docked laptop. Get over it, No seriously, I have an exterrnal monitor, keyboard, mouse, headset, ethernet and cooling fans all connected. Using it feels no different to a desktop, it works for several hours if the power goes out, and disconnecting just a few cables gives me something I can take on the go. There's enough power for all games I play and it even copes with basic (and some not-so-basic) video editing. Give it a go - you might just love it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people hate criticism?

of course there will be dislike on a video.

Everyone, Creator初音ミク Hatsune Miku Google commercial.

 

 

Cameras main canon xti Secondary Panasonic GX85 spare Samsung ST68 and nikion s4000

 

Pc

Spoiler

Dell prebuilt - i5-6400- 20GB ram -500gb HDD dvd 

 

HP compaq 8300 prebuilt - Intel i5-3470 - 8GB ram - 500GB HDD - bluray drive

 

old windows 7 gaming desktop - Intel i5 2400 - lenovo CIH61M V:1.0 - 4GB ram - 1TB HDD - dual DVD roms 

 

main laptop acer e5 15 - Intel i3 7th gen - 16GB ram - 1TB HDD - dvd drive                                                                     

 

school laptop lenovo 300e chromebook 2nd gen - Intel celeron - 4GB ram - 32GB SSD 

                                                                 

myanimelist

#Muricaparrotgang                                                                                   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

*insert a Youtube rewind joke here*

If you can read this you're using the wrong theme.  You can change it at the bottom.

#MuricaParrotGang

The meme thread

 

 

 

All of my image memes are made with GIMP.

 

My specs are crap but if you are interested:

Spoiler

 

The meme-making Optiplex 780:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0 GHz

GPU: NVidia Quadro FX 580

RAM: 2 GB

SSD: Non-existent

HDD: 1 TB

OS: Windows 7

 

Laptop: HP 255 G7

CPU: Ryzen 5 3500U

GPU: Radeon Vega 8

RAM: 8 GB

SSD: 500 GB NVMe

OS: Windows 10

 

Testing, testing, phainful, phassionate, pheanut butter, phandemonium, phen-phineapphle, apphle-phen that one dead meme.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Kisai said:

Depends how the advertiser and the algorithms line up. Google berates you for not using it's algorithms and instead wants you to let it decide what videos your ads appear next to/on/pre-roll/interstitial with. Now on the other hand, if you fine-tune it, like you're supposed to, to not waste ad-spend on garbage sites, what you do is isolate large chunks of videos you never want your ads appearing on. For example, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Subway, PizzaHut, etc relatively "non-risky" brands, want to advertise on non-risky content, stuff that no f-bombs appear on, stuff that isn't a scam or misinformation. That isn't driven directly by likes/dislikes, the algorithm uses it to decide what videos have high engagement.

 

So for example, no safe brand would ever advertise on youtube or twitch. Yet brands like Pepsi/Doritos/MountainDew/KFC/TacoBell/Wendys/Arbys/BurgerKing have a pattern of advertising on less-safe content.

 

Know thy audience. Coca Cola and McDonalds want to advertise on the Disney-Nintendo-Apple safe type of content, where as Pepsi and KFC advertise on the Halo, Fortnite, Pupb, Overwatch gaming content because that's what they associate their brand with. Heck there is this entire linking of Doritos and Mountain Dew (both owned by Pepsi) to eSports.

 

At any rate I'm sure smaller advertisers don't want to compete with Coke and Pepsi. Coke and Pepsi have marketing departments, and rarely advertise on small content creators anyway, and explicitly whitelist what their ads appear on for brand-safety. So that leaves small content creators with small advertisers who aren't as picky. This is where the algorithm and engagement metrics come into play.

 

Pepsi owns/owned kfc and a bunch of other fast food restaurants.  For a while at least pretty much any fast food restaurant that served only Pepsi was owned by Pepsi.  Was a while ago.  May no longer be true.  I don’t know.

Edited by Bombastinator

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Pepsi owns/owned kfc and a bunch of other fast food restaurants.  For a while at least pretty much any fast food restaurant that served only Pepsi was owned by Pepsi.  Was a while ago.  May no longer be true.  I don’t know.

In the late 90s PepsiCo spun off their fast food division into what is now called Yum Brands. But I believe most of those restaurants still serve Pepsi instead of Coca-Cola 

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

pythonmegapixel

into tech, public transport and architecture // amateur programmer // youtuber // beginner photographer

Thanks for reading all this by the way!

By the way, my desktop is a docked laptop. Get over it, No seriously, I have an exterrnal monitor, keyboard, mouse, headset, ethernet and cooling fans all connected. Using it feels no different to a desktop, it works for several hours if the power goes out, and disconnecting just a few cables gives me something I can take on the go. There's enough power for all games I play and it even copes with basic (and some not-so-basic) video editing. Give it a go - you might just love it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

In the late 90s PepsiCo spun off their fast food division into what is now called Yum Brands. But I believe most of those restaurants still serve Pepsi instead of Coca-Cola 

So Pepsi isn’t buying ads for yum brands though they may have a similar strategy.

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Pepsi owns/owned kfc and a bunch of other fast food restaurants.  For a while at least pretty much any fast food restaurant that served only Pepsi was owned by Pepsi.  Was a while ago.  May no longer be true.  I don’t know.

Pepsi owned KFC(acq 1986), Taco Bell (aq 1978) and Pizza Hut(acq 1977) until 1997.

 

But that's missing the point. The present way Coca-cola and Pepsi do things is to make exclusive licensing arrangements with resturants. Like Coca-cola has the license for Subway in the US but Pepsi does in Canada. That's part of it's own marketing. The same applies to potato/corn chips in grocery/corner stores. Pepsi pays to have the Doritos and Lays chips take X amount of shelf space and sends their own people to put the chips on the shelf and cycle out stuff nearing the best-before date. Same for Nabisco/Christie 's products. Various other brands are the same in this regard.

 

How this relates to likes and advertising is not quite the same. Pepsi pays to have, say 8' of shelf space in the 7-11 and 12' in Walmart. So only their products appear on that space on the shelf, and it's priority space (near the end of the aisle)  otherwise they would have to compete with the store-brand products and other third party brands, which is why third-party brands often end up with like 2' spaces on shelves between the Lays and the store brand. Advertisers on the internet, pay to have fixed space (sponsorship) in a video (see LTT videos), or as pre-roll/mid-roll ads and will continue to pay to have that space on that video, channel or website for as long as they pay for it.

 

Those ads are the preferable ads to have, because they are a known quality, and directly endorse what they advertise on, and vice versa. So if there was a really popular esports streamer, getting them to endorse Doritos and Mountain Dew would be preferable for that brand.

 

So the likes, again, go back to engagement metrics. The most liked video might show the high paying ads, and the least liked/most-disliked videos will likely have their ads pulled. Go watch any video on youtube adpocalypse's and how youtube has been slowly making content creators burn-out, because having those videos with poor engagement metrics, or contentid flags destroys its' discoverability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the normal at home youtubers think this is a good idea.

 

Companies/corporations/political groups however do, and this is the logical source of the push for this.

 

Disney for example is suffering massively for their wokeness in their content, their coziness with the CCP, and like the crap coming out of Lucas Film.

The white house channel also isnt doing well despite their insistence that "the most popular president in history" is currently serving.

 

The idea that organized mass down voting is a thing is ridiculous, it can happen small scale, but the scale they are using as the reason for this move, just doesnt happen, these "mass down votes" happen for a reason, because people dont like the content or have no other way to voice negative feedback against actions taken by the channel owner.

 

Im sure u've heard the quote by George R.R Martin.

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”

 

For 'normal' youtubers, even popular ones with hundreds of thousands or even millions of subscribers and views, the public downvotes and comments section is a very useful and important metric for them to gauge for future content.

CPU: Intel i7 3930k w/OC & EK Supremacy EVO Block | Motherboard: Asus P9x79 Pro  | RAM: G.Skill 4x4 1866 CL9 | PSU: Seasonic Platinum 1000w | VDU: Panasonic 42" Plasma |

GPU: Gigabyte 1080ti Gaming OC w/OC & Barrow Block | Sound: Asus Xonar D2X - Z5500 -FiiO X3K DAP/DAC - ATH-M50S | Case: Phantek Enthoo Primo White |

Storage: Samsung 850 Pro 1TB SSD + Samsung 850 Evo 256GB SSD | Cooling: XSPC D5 Photon 270 Res & Pump | 2x XSPC AX240 White Rads | NexXxos Monsta 80x240 Rad P/P |

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody thinks this is a good thing.

 

It sounds to me like Disney, Lucasfilm, the news networks or one of the other major media corporations got butt-hurt and pressured them into doing this. I have little doubt that all of these 'elites' sleep in the same bed and collectively work towards the same goal.

 

I could completely be wrong, but this is my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SolarNova said:

None of the normal at home youtubers think this is a good idea.

I disagree, and anyone who produces animation or long-form content sees it as a good idea. Why the heck would you spend months on something, only for it to get bridaded into the ground because you're a popular punching bag because of "that one thing"
 

Quote

Companies/corporations/political groups however do, and this is the logical source of the push for this.

 

Disney for example is suffering massively for their wokeness in their content

No, they aren't. They just realize that wokeness sells better than playing it completely safe.

Quote

, their coziness with the CCP, and like the crap coming out of Lucas Film.

The white house channel also isnt doing well despite their insistence that "the most popular president in history" is currently serving.

That's political. Disliking the white house content is actively political, and nobody should ever give a care about official government media likes. As for China, it's pretty clear why a film has been scrubbed to appease China, because they want to actively sell it in China, and if they don't kiss the ring, it will never get in. You're free to not watch those films.

 

Quote

The idea that organized mass down voting is a thing is ridiculous,

It happens, it happens at any scale and happens as a way to kick youtubers in the teeth. A corporation can weather it, individuals can not.

 

Quote

the public downvotes and comments section is a very useful and important metric for them to gauge for future content.

No, it's only useful if dislike brigading isn't a thing, and advertisement algorithm tuning isn't a thing.

 

For example, the youtube rewind video, was never recommended to me, I had to actually go find it. But it happens to be the video on the top if searched directly for it.

image.png.f16b28de4b2b776d49186f3ef0b97fa6.png

 

image.thumb.png.c2d0b5a032dc0b6767f09ca8ace689da.png

You can't tell me that it wasn't dislike brigaded, when it was viewed twice as much as 2014, and 2014's was around for 4 more years.

 

image.thumb.png.b8257ba26f8ae565972e36032dd5cb53.png

There are literately more likes on the 2018 video than there any likes at all on the 2014 video.

 

Then there is the 2017 video which was also brigaded.

image.thumb.png.4a0fa22f7bd9d3fe8adbe20574b097db.png

 

 

https://www.polygon.com/2019/12/6/20998648/2019-youtube-rewind-dislikes-2018

Quote

Last December, the 2018 YouTube Rewind became the single most disliked video on YouTube, with creators and fans accusing it of being too corporate, highlighting brands and celebrities instead of the platform’s actual community. The video racked up 10 million dislikes in just eight days, and became a notorious example of the discrepancy between YouTube, the corporate entity, and YouTube, a community of creators on the platform.

Right, so how was this communicated?

image.png.3045d55d75413399c6c3c34c0e53ba45.png

 

If you look at comments just from the last 2 days, you see it's still actively being dislike brigaded.

 

 

 

 

image.png.192de525e08e307e0ab0ba8f6f99a6b8.png

 

Youtube tends to have this problem of kowtowing to legal reasons (eg coppa and dmca) while doing absolutely nothing to prevent the same tools being weaponized by trolls on the internet. If they can't moderate their platform... they remove the comments. If they can't stop dislike brigading, they will remove the dislike button.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wonder if the numbers they show are the true numbers. After all, it's just an algorithm, they can put whatever numbers they want. There's no "official" auditor of those kinds of things on all platforms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, willies leg said:

I always wonder if the numbers they show are the true numbers. After all, it's just an algorithm, they can put whatever numbers they want. There's no "official" auditor of those kinds of things on all platforms.

That's an interesting point tbh. I've often thought that if they're that bothered they could just silently start algorithmically generating a plausible dislike count and ignoring peoples' actual dislikes. Would cause a lot less controversy - until they were found out of course.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

pythonmegapixel

into tech, public transport and architecture // amateur programmer // youtuber // beginner photographer

Thanks for reading all this by the way!

By the way, my desktop is a docked laptop. Get over it, No seriously, I have an exterrnal monitor, keyboard, mouse, headset, ethernet and cooling fans all connected. Using it feels no different to a desktop, it works for several hours if the power goes out, and disconnecting just a few cables gives me something I can take on the go. There's enough power for all games I play and it even copes with basic (and some not-so-basic) video editing. Give it a go - you might just love it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×