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

[Theminecraftaddict555]

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. 

[Kisai]

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.

 

[Theminecraftaddict555]

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. 

[Kisai]

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.

 

[Awesome84]

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.

[pythonmegapixel]

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...

[sub68]

Do people hate criticism?

of course there will be dislike on a video.

[Red :)]

*insert a Youtube rewind joke here*

[Bombastinator]

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 April 5, 2021 by Bombastinator

[pythonmegapixel]

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 

[Bombastinator]

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.

[Kisai]

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.

[SolarNova]

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.

[steelo]

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.

[Kisai]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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?

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

[Guest willies leg]

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.

[pythonmegapixel]

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.

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes 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.

This is a perennial problem with anything electronic that purports to be random as well.  Indicators can be falsified and therefore are difficult to trust

[SolarNova]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

Spoiler

 

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"
 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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

Right, so how was this communicated?

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[Kisai]

5 hours 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.

Not always. I think it was the Gangnam style video did something strange originally, like a personalized greeting in the description. It doesn't do it any more though.

Oddly enough Korean music groups have been the only ones to actually embrace Youtube for their distribution.

 

 

Only half their subs have liked the video.

 

Now go back to the dislike brigaded YT rewind 2018 and notice how the dislikes are equal to about 60% of it's subs.

 

Take note, the population of Korea is 51.7m. So there are more subs than there are residents of Korea, so it's not logical every second resident of Korea likes the BTS video either. So clearly those come from outside Korea. You know what BTS is also known for? It's fans. If all of them were on youtube there's no reason why the video shouldn't easily have 40 million likes.

 

In my opinion, Youtube almost certainly has some dislike-brigading/false-engagement prevention feature already in place for high value, brand-safe, channels. You can still dislike such videos, but they may delay the display until the release window closes so it doesn't gain media attention for being heavily disliked. 

 

[James5382]

Spoiler

 

That clears things up why you think removing dislikes is a good thing Kisai, following the Dan Olsen line of thought. But consider this: dislikes aren't a measure of of the quality of a video, but rather how controversial something is, and YouTube comments are a worse form of feedback than a dislike. By looking at the most disliked videos by percentage, you can see that they mostly revolve around social or political subjects that generate some form of controversy. Since almost every video on YouTube has a >90% like/dislike ratio, the most relevant (controversial) videos on YouTube are those with a ratio below that. Since the percentage would still be visible to creators, I only see this as a net loss to viewers.

 

Secondly, I can scarce think of anyone who would rather read a comment on a YouTube video than look at the like/dislike ratio for proper feedback, (comment sections are the first thing to go if brigaded for a reason)

 

 

I think this video presents a good argument against a Facebook or Twitter style approach to likes on YouTube

 

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Artikfal said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

That clears things up why you think removing dislikes is a good thing Kisai, following the Dan Olsen line of thought. But consider this: dislikes aren't a measure of of the quality of a video, but rather how controversial something is, and YouTube comments are a worse form of feedback than a dislike. 

The youtuber has control over the comments and can delete or moderate them. They do not have control over the likes other than to hide them ALL completely.

 

Maybe the like/dislike feature and commenting needs to only be available after watching 75% of the video. That would put a damper on brigading the video, yet a better option is to just remove the dislike ability in the first place so that the "ratio" then becomes the views to likes instead. If you have 1m views, but 1000 likes... you've done something wrong.

 

There are also people like myself, who never use the like feature either, because I've always viewed it as a social bookmark, a way to come back and look at things. Like how it works on spotify.

 

[FakeATF]

23 hours ago, Kisai said:

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"
 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Firstly, love that you use the whole "woke twitter post" in your argument : )

 

Quote

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.

Okay, so why did you use Youtube rewind as your example? That literally proves nothing.

Quote

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

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.

I can actively feel my brain melting after this. "Nobody should give a care about what official government media likes" What??? It's the damn government, I have a vested interest as a citizen in what they support. I have to hold them accountable! I need to hold them accountable if they are spreading "propaganda" (for lack of a better word), or they are engaging in new policies that I do not agree with. If they say that this current president is doing an amazing job and that everyone likes him, and people don't agree with it, they need to make that known. The source of power comes from the people, not the government.

Quote

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

So you'd get rid of the option share your opinion because some people also use it? What?

 

People need the option to express their views, even on YouTube

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, FakeATF said:

Firstly, love that you use the whole "woke twitter post" in your argument : )

Sometimes the most concise thing was already said. You say that like Woke is bad or something.

 

1 minute ago, FakeATF said:

 

I can actively feel my brain melting after this. "Nobody should give a care about what official government media likes" What??? It's the damn government, I have a vested interest as a citizen in what they support. I have to hold them accountable! I need to hold them if they are spreading "propaganda" (for lack of a better word). If they say that this current president is doing an amazing job and that everyone likes him, and people don't agree with it, they need to make that known. The source of power comes from the people, not the government.

 

Nobody cares about government propaganda, likes or dislikes on it mean nothing to the government, it's just another avenue for information already released to the press. The government seriously does not care if you like it's videos or not, and youtube has no incentive to monetize or increase visibility of it. It's more likely the government puts videos on youtube as a point of accessibility, not to monetize it like most other content.

 

That's something people readily forget, is that government media produced by federal workers in the US is copyright-free unless assigned a copyright. So things put out by the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branch are not incentivized to put things on youtube themselves, when a third party (eg CSPAN) already has the access to do so.

 

https://www.c-span.org/about/copyrightsAndLicensing/

Quote

Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution.

 

Which again, that is about access. Nobody gives a care if they are liked or not. The amount of people interested in government media is pretty low, and unless some event happens (eg Jan 6 2021) to the government, generally existing news media will have information on their own channels long before the government responds.

 

 

[FakeATF]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

Sometimes the most concise thing was already said. You say that like Woke is bad or something.

 

Nobody cares about government propaganda, likes or dislikes on it mean nothing to the government, it's just another avenue for information already released to the press. The government seriously does not care if you like it's videos or not, and youtube has no incentive to monetize or increase visibility of it. It's more likely the government puts videos on youtube as a point of accessibility, not to monetize it like most other content.

 

That's something people readily forget, is that government media produced by federal workers in the US is copyright-free unless assigned a copyright. So things put out by the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branch are not incentivized to put things on youtube themselves, when a third party (eg CSPAN) already has the access to do so.

 

https://www.c-span.org/about/copyrightsAndLicensing/

 

Which again, that is about access. Nobody gives a care if they are liked or not. The amount of people interested in government media is pretty low, and unless some event happens (eg Jan 6 2021) to the government, generally existing news media will have information on their own channels long before the government responds.

 

 

Here is what you said:

Quote

Disliking the white house content is actively political, and nobody should ever give a care about official government media likes.

Media, not social media.

 

Given your response though, I assume that you meant social media.

 

Given that Social Media is something that many people use to get easy, quick to absorb information, many people will see something that someone puts out. This includes the Federal government. Just because it's not a "formal" news site or communique, doesn't mean anything that the public says is to be ignored. Granted, I agree that the government doesn't really use its social media as an avenue of communication, nor do I really think that they should. However, my point was about Government media in general, so it's a moot point.

 

 

Quote

Sometimes the most concise thing was already said. You say that like Woke is bad or something.

Yes, I do say that like woke is bad, because the vast majority of "woke stuff" I see, I don't agree with. I like how people think that you have to agree with "wokeness", and if you don't you're some kind of far right, political extremist.

 

I'll stop though, because i'm definitely treading the line when it comes to politics on the forums, and I would not be surprised if this section gets removed.