By night, YouTube and Facebook secretly take baseball bats to the windshields of our minds.
By day, YouTube and Facebook sell us glass repair services, at a special price no less!
YT and FB could fix these social issues overnight, if they wanted to: turn off autoplay, turn off recommendations, restore chronological timelines, and dial down the ads. But they won't because that is the core of their business model.
Instead they offer bullshit mind-repair services to fix the damage they continue to do.
Any strategy for the betterment of society that depends on for-profit companies voluntarily forgoing legal ways to earn a profit is doomed to failure. It's elaborate do-gooder fan fiction. The world does not work that way.
The world shouldn't work that way either: if companies stopped providing the goods and services people needed because a few self-appointed guardians of the public good scream about it on social media, we'd never have been able to make progress at all, since these activists have no special power to distinguish change from regression, and so err toward stasis.
If you want high-engagement features disabled, fine. Propose a law. Let's duke it out in the process of government. You will lose, badly, because your position is wildly unpopular with the vast body of the population.
>> since these activists have no special power to distinguish change from regression
OK. That may be true. but demand is also a poor signal of distinguishing progress from regression.
So let's work on that. On a better method for doing so. It seems possible to do so, using the knowledge we gained in the many sciences dealing with human/eco welfare.
>> Let's duke it out in the process of government. ... You will lose, badly, because your position is wildly unpopular with the vast body of the population.
Leaving aside the many failures of democracy, people not always know or prefer the thing that is good for them in the long term. I'm not saying that totalitarinsm is OK, but most people do benefit from living in an environment that guides them well, surrounds them with good things, and makes it hard for them to choose the wrong choices.
Do you have any idea how much evil and misery throughout history has been perpetuated by people who believed that the masses don't know what's good for them?
And "knowledge"? What knowledge? The social sciences largely do not reproduce. For the past few decades, the social sciences have been a mystic cult with political aspirations. We knew more in 1990 than we "know" now.
Sure, extreme totalitarianism is bad. But isn't there a middle ground ?
In the grand parent post, we talked about "YT and FB could fix these social issues overnight, if they wanted to: turn off autoplay, turn off recommendations, restore chronological timelines, and dial down the ads.". It is quite different from the great evils of history.
And sure, we should work on reproducing social sciences. it's a big problem.
But i would guess that if you'd describe something like the internet that is today in very general terms(possible to predict once you know that attention/engagement is the lead driver) to psychologists, a decade ago, they would have told you that it may hold some serious potential problems.
Does it mean we need to stop progress ? maybe not, but slowing "progress" in the name of caution may not be a bad trade-off. and once we see the dangers, rolling it back(even against the addicted population's wishes) may also be a decent option.
> Sure, extreme totalitarianism is bad. But isn't there a middle ground ?
So mild totalitarianism is be okay?
No, there is no acceptable "middle ground" in which a bunch of Twitter gets in the way of consenting business and consumers and tells people how to run their lives.
> by people who believed that the masses don't know what's good for them?
The idea of a republic is not that different. Acoording to its tenets, the masses are still not to be trusted to make the decisions because they dont know whats good for them. Instead, they are supposed to choose a small fraction of people who not only are supposed to know whats good for them but would also make decisions that is good for them.
It is not a whole lot less patronizing than 'masses don't know what's good for them'
What a myopic comment, and dripping with unwarranted vitriol.
The world absolutely _should_ work that way. Companies _should_ have half a brain to realise that selling bottled water is bad for the environment, that fracking causes earthquakes, that sugar is the root of all dietary evil, that tobacco is carcinogenic, that overfishing causes unspeakable damage to ocean life, that SUVs are colossal wastes of space and fuel...
All the companies doing the above are providing wildly popular goods and services. And a lot of them are perfectly legal too.
Your suggestion implies that all this is just dandy, thank you very much, so take your hemp clothing and your vegan sandals and your do-gooderness off of my property and gtfo acting as a "self appointed guardian".
What kind of extreme libertarian hard-on does a man have to possess to believe that all of this is how society SHOULD work?
I deeply resent this sentiment that you have to take the good with the bad of a free market society because there is no alternative. Of course there is! Regulate these idiots into the ground! While this is clearly a pipe dream, that's a long way away from the statement that this is how society _should_ be.
I disagree with you at a philosophical level. Companies exist to satisfy demand and earn a profit. The benefit to our capitalist democratic system is that the people in power both commercially and politically are beholden to the demands of the people. We define morality in terms of demand. That can happen through legislation or through personal accountability. The public brain trust remains in control, this protects us from the ultimate danger, a well-intentioned yet myopic autocrat.
I should have been more clear in my original comment. I have no opposition to regulation and consider it a crucial part of any capitalist system. I disagree with the idea that companies should be expected to make these moral value judgements themselves.
"providing the good and services people needed"? Nobody needs to watch videos or like memes on Facebook.
It's just a cheap type of stimulation that can easily become addictive (because it's designed to become addictive).
Judging by how gushing you are about those services, and how they represent progress, one could be excused for thinking that you're referring to some essential scientific invention, instead of the internet based fast-food of the mind.
And it's funny that you're challenging people to fight Facebook & co in the process of government, which has been subverted by lobbyist money from... Facebook & co.
Why do you think that the US government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to privacy? Because they're paid a lot of money to not worry about it. And with enough money changing hands, it becomes easy to think that in fact those services are needed by the public and they represent progress.
So no thanks. The self-appointed guardians of the public are smart to use different tactics.
Special power? It's easy for most to see if something has damaging consequences. When did we start needing experts to tell us basic things? If we don't trust our own judgment, we are not adults.
You're right. "Help you stop watching" effectively shifts the blame from the corporation onto the consumer. It's an entirely self serving strategy made under the guise of ethics.
Who's to say that the minds they're building aren't more suitable for a future environment? You're assuming the future is like the past, which is most assuredly won't be.
Building minds? They aren't building minds; evolution is what built minds, and it hasn't had time to adapt to this situation. Modern media is exploiting bugs in the mind's structure for profit, and these companies are leaving plenty of damage in their wake.
If the future is passive consumption of propaganda and marketing content masquerading as "entertainment", you can count me out. I'll go chop wood and raise chickens while I watch for the system to collapse under its own weight.
I truly hope that being addicted to instant gratification via a dopamine response doesn't make one more suited for future environments. I can't see how that would be healthy or productive
Besides the ads I really like all of those things. You make them sound so nefarious with no useful purpose. I find new channels all the time from my recommendations and if I didn't have autoplay then I wouldn't be able to coast on a topic I want to learn about passively.
It's immensely useful to me and just because you don't like it doesn't make it some evil plot to control our minds. Remember that TV has had autoplay since its inception. It's just a natural way to consume media passively.
Also on Youtube, you can easily toggle autoplay at any time, and in contrast to FB & Twitter there still _is_ a page for subscription videos in chronological order.
Yes, "bad" (who is to judge?) defaults might be slightly immoral, but they are at least giving users the option to not use them.
Perhaps part of the problem is that exact "coasting" mentality that you mention. Autoplay disincentivizes users to seek out their own content, which would help build the skills which are useful for finding new, interesting information on the internet.
The deeper philosophical question seems to be whether it's more desirable for people to have the skills to control their own education or whether it's more desirable to optimize tools for bringing educational resources to people. You can go a bit deeper than that and ask whether it's more desirable to have a population of independent thinkers or like-minded thinkers. We'd probably be better off with a bit of both.
I prefer to frame these kinds of arguments in terms of educational materials, which you can kinda loosely call most forms of media.
Or: auto logout. It's how I effectively dampered by Facebook usage. No apps on the phone, log out when done on the desktop. Adds a picosecond for considering whether you're tabbing over out of addiction or free will.
Have you considered not using fb anymore? Try the delete account feature - they give you a few weeks before it's actually deleted. I found that I didn't actually miss it.
It gets quite fun if you don't use it. Facebook starts sending really needy notifications like "X just commented on a picture" or "Y just liked this" to try and make you login. I think there's an apocryphal metric (which is probably true) that users must always have one unread notification when they login. There's no way of turning these messages off short of unfollowing every one of your friends individually.
Yeah if I haven't logged in in a bit but there aren't any "real" notifications, it gives me a notification like "Do you know N", where N is invariably a person I've never met, with whom I have no mutual friends or common groups.
I only get this on mobile (having the app installed), email is thankfully unaffected. But presumably if you logged in, you'd find a bunch of notifications that were largely irrelevant to you.
I have noticed that if you have the app open but have no activity for a short while they pop up a notification, often for something relatively obscure like a new comment in a group that you're a member of, I guess to try and regain your interest. I definitely fell for it the first few times.
If you’re like me and try to reduce being tracked by using a private browsing window, you have to do this every single time you go to Youtube. Same with annotations, which I see as pure intrusion.
It's actually in large part up to you what content they feed you. Twitter, fb, it's who you put in your feed. YouTube, it's based on what you watch. Consume garbage, get more garbage.
YouTube actually has a treasure trove of content and once you find it, you get more of it[1]. And their recommendations are really handy to see related content.
No ads with YouTube Red.
[1] e.g., I mostly see stuff from channels like CGP Grey, Kurzgesagt, Veritasium, Vsauce, Every Frame a Painting, Vox, Jordan Peterson, Matthias Wandel, Nerdwriter1, AvE, TED Talks, SciShow, Engineer Guy, LastWeekTonight, SmarterEveryDay, etc...
> YT and FB could fix these social issues overnight
What social issues? I remember old conservatives railing about gansta rap and south park causing social issues back i the day. Now it's old people whining about YT and FB. They aren't cause of social issues and they aren't the solution either. No more than smartphones or flat screen TVs.
> if they wanted to: turn off autoplay, turn off recommendations,
Why should they?
> But they won't because that is the core of their business model.
Sure. But what about the people who want recommendations or autoplay?
What's with select group of people on HN and their totalitarian mindset? Just because you don't have impulse control doesn't mean others don't have it.
I like recommendations because it helps me find relevant videos. For example, if I search for C# or Haskell tutorials, it's great to see other C# or haskell videos. Same thing for recipes or how-to videos or nature videos or anything else. Why should I and others be denied something because you don't like it?
It's crazy that some of the people on "hacker" news are so dedicated on censorship. Somehow hacker news turned from a very programmer/tech/free speech forum to old people whining about their lives and society.
How about personal responsibility? How about not blaming others for your own short coming?
> Instead they offer bullshit mind-repair services to fix the damage they continue to do.
I agree, they shouldn't give in. Instead they should tell advertisers and people who whine to simply stop using youtube.
I don't understand why youtube and the rest of social media/tech industry simply put their foot down and say enough is enough.
What about hacker news? Do you think hacker news should be shut down? Is hacker news responsible for social issues?
> What social issues? I remember old conservatives railing about gansta rap and south park causing social issues back i the day. Now it's old people whining about YT and FB. They aren't cause of social issues and they aren't the solution either. No more than smartphones or flat screen TVs.
Gangsta rap and South Park are content. This thread is about platforms and how the medium can shape the message. The analogy does not hold water.
The rest of your comment is kinda off-topic and ranty, but that wasn't a great way to start it. Friendly advice.
Surprised nobody brought it up when talking about terrible UX. The current YouTube UI is this shit called polymer. It's terrible, on most systems it delays loading any text around the player until the player is loaded. (Especially bad in Firefox/Edge)
This can be disabled by appending disable_polymer=1 to the URL, but it can't be saved as a cookie or set per account. I have a greasemonkey script to it.
For me it's an annoyance, for my blind friend it means no working screenreader when polymer is enabled.
Really? This certainly can't be a limitation in the language, correct? I find it hard to believe that Google doesn't have accessibility support for one of their websites written in their own language.
YouTube's Polymer UI uses Web Components and Shadow DOM, which are natively implemented in Chrome but not Firefox or Edge yet. So YouTube serves slow JavaScript polyfills for JavaScript to non-Chrome browsers.
Firefox and Edge (on my Windows laptop) take about five seconds to replace a YouTube page's wireframe layout with text. But if I append "&disable_polymer=1" as joecool1029 recommends above, the text loads instantly in Firefox and Edge. Is YouTube's new Polymer UI sooo much better that is worth five second page loads in non-Chrome browsers?
Correction: I did some more research and YouTube's Polymer UI uses Chrome's non-standard Shadow DOM v0 API, so even when Firefox and Edge ship the standard Shadow DOM API (which is in progress), YouTube will still be 5x slower than in Chrome. :|
Am I the only one who has 0 youtube addiction? I find FB far more compelling, though I derive quite a bit of value from it.
I watch YouTube to watch a video or two I want to watch. that's it. Frankly, when someone sends me a video to watch, I resent it, because I hate spending 5 minutes of my life watching something that probably won't be funny.
Some nights I'll pull up YT on the TV and play a Wendover productions vid, or an AvE vid, or a car video or two, and that's it. I don't ever feel sucked in or addicted to it. If anything, I often want to watch something but can't find anything interesting to watch; nothing sounds that compelling, or I get 3 minutes in and am bored so I try to find something else.
Am I unique in that way? I've also never gotten into video games, they just don't hold any appeal or hold my attention. That's not to say I haven't spend 12 hours gaming at a LAN party once in a blue moon (actually far less frequently, maybe 4 or 5 times in my life).. but I don't get sucked in in the same way I get sucked into other internet distractions. I can go down HN rabbitholes or keep refreshing FB or some news site hoping to find something interesting, but YT doesn't do it for me.
I go on YouTube like once a month, at most. So yea I’m with you. I’ve actually _tried_ to get “addicted” to it by forcing myself to search for interesting videos just to see what all the fuss about, but I just never end up going back to the site for more
I am exactly like you. I hate videos. Videos are a loss of time compared to text. They are slower, you can’t consume them at your own pace, you can’t go back easily or read a particular part slowly and then read the rest faster or skip sections or paragraphs or...
Also I can’t imagine anything lamer than YouTube personalities.
I think it depends on the type of content. I'm totally with you for content that should be text (e.g. most things related to programming), but some content lends itself to the video form factor and doesn't work as plaintext content.
For example, imagine CinemaSins or Movies with Mikey as plaintext. That would take all of the fun out of it.
Or imagine reading transcripts of Stephen Colbert's monologues. Those would probably be quite tedious since a lot of Colbert's quality is his pantomimic object work.
This. It kind of depends on my mood or what I'm doing, but reading is generally so much faster. Though I realized a while back that this is mostly true for people who read quickly. Some of my older family members prefer videos to having to put on reading glasses. And a lot of people just read slowly in general.
Now that I think about it, it's usually when my eyes are kind of aching (long days at screens) that I start to prefer videos even for things that don't require a visual.
I used to think exactly like yourself, until I found some really good channels of passionate people. It's clear when the author is doing videos because he enjoy in contrast when they're doing for the short term money.
Related: as far as I know, there's no way to permanently disable the "Up Next" autoplay on the desktop site for an account, which drives me crazy every day pretty much. I hope this new design philosophy will end up with a way to disable autoplay... but I'm not holding my breath.
but you have to be logged in for that setting to be effective and most of the time I'm not logged in when browsing YouTube...
Sometimes I just let it play in the background to eat up their bandwidth for no reason because i don't like stupid default settings. I get it that google is trying to turn the Internet into a TV, but soon you won't even have to type anything in Google Search... the results will come to you.
yeah I know, it's not really a good solution unless most people do it. The better alternative is to not use the Youtube app or website... you can use NewPipe as an app for accessing Youtube, for example...
My personal solution is to play everything with mpv instead: From YouTube's SERP, I copy the link to the video and run `mpv "$(xsel -b)"`, which downloads the video with youtube-dl and plays it in mpv, i.e. in a desktop app. No bullshit, no autoplay, just plain video and audio. As a bonus, this works with almost any website containing video, so the player works the same regardless of website.
Yes! Added advantages that it skips ads, and has keyboard control for all sorts of things that are sometimes useful depending on what you're watching or listening to: playback speed, A-B loop repeat, adjust brightness / hue, pause, frame advance, take screenshot etc.
I have Auto Play disabled on my YouTube account for regular channels. The control is above the Up Next list and I've had it off for well over a year now.
Are you talking playlists or period? On directly going to a video mine is disabled on the desktop site unless I load in incog window where I lose my settings. Playlists, however, I know of no way to fix it.
I actually use the autoplay a lot to fake curated playlists when listening to music. Works pretty well. You start with a good song and it keeps getting good related songs.
Until it trips up and you go from Foo Fighters to Taylor Swift but tht only happens rarely.
Stop promoting videos that are low-content, mindless listicles, or flat-out misleading. Or promote stupid behavior. I'm relatively savvy, but every time I go poking around YouTube it takes a fucking effort to avoid this garbage.
Those videos are designed to be as addicting and empty as eating piles and piles of candy and YouTube cannot be a mentally healthy place as long as they're constantly pushed to to forefront.
I rarely see any of that, actually. The key is to be logged in, build up some history and subscribe to high quality channels. Most of what I see is related to things I've watched or new content from said channels.
Plus subscribe to Youtube Red, so don't have ads injecting garbage.
YouTube is pretty accurate in how it does recommended content. Sometimes I do watch shitty content, but unlike Amazon, I'm not gonna be stuck with that decision for the next few months. And their revenue model is apparently really good, with YouTube red being more lucrative for a channel than ads. It's the kind of system I wish were available in other places more often.
As a website YouTube probably doesn't have much interest in working on client-based tools, especially not for a niche audience. Though I do wish they would at least give even logged-in users a way to block channels.
There are browser add-ons that can block channels or certain keywords:
Parents can block channels in YouTube Kids, but I don't know of a way to block channels in normal YouTube. The closest I've seen is telling YouTube you're not interested in recommendations for a certain channel, but I assume that only prevents videos from that channel showing up on your home page.
Though I usually just use the Video Blocker extension, so perhaps there's something I'm missed.
Is there any way to create a playlist of videos and then resume playback at the same point?
For instance, I have about 20 C++ videos I'd like to watch, and each is an hour long. I rarely have a whole hour, but maybe 20 minutes. I have yet to figure out how to resume playback where I left off, which would be a very useful feature!
YouTube did that at the beginning of April by enforcing new content standards that disallowed content I liked. Deciding to exercise editorial and "parental" control over the platform is going to kill it for me, and extrapolating from current trends, probably do so in the next 12 months or less.
I really hope Google keeps moving in this direction. I think it will be great for the company's long term reception and I'm excited to apply this to my own life.
Rather than giving people an exit strategy from a predatory and addictive UX, did it ever occur to Google that they may instead try to improve the UX itself so that “tools” like this don’t need to be made in the first place?
"Predatory and addictive UX" in this case just refers to the fact that they have a good algorithm and setup that correctly shows me additional related content that I actually want to see. This is like getting mad at the restaurant by your house for having food that is so good that it's making you fat and poor.
Personal lack of self control is the problem, not good UX. A tool like this is attempting to assist with the problem, not bring the functionality of the site to a point that services the shortcomings of the lowest common denominator.
Why would you say what I meant by "predatory and addictive" instead of just asking me what I meant? Your statement is a broad oversimplification of my point, and this makes your argument intellectually dishonest.
You and I may understand the need to engage in self-control and personal responsibility for sites like YouTube, but that's because you and I have an insiders' perspective on the dangers of not doing so.
YouTube has precipitously catered to the lowest common denominator and took advantage of their mass gullability. It is overwhelmingly obvious that YouTube designed their site in a way that would get people addicted to the point of needing a tool like this. The fact that they auto-play videos when they know the viewer is a child is downright disgusting.
YouTube did this instead of taking a more sophisticated approach of catering to directors, actors, and producers. YouTube had the chance to elevate the conversation and make digital media higher-minded, but instead decided to cater to people making content for the lowest common denominator - stupid, shlocky trash. The fact that you refer to what YouTube provides as "content" shows that you are not at all concerned with the way that YouTube has cheapened our digital media in order to get people hopelessly hooked.
Just because one can do something effective to increase the immediate bottom line and revenues of their product, doesn't mean they should. I am all about personal responsibility and I do agree that the blame largely lands on the individual at the end of the day. But YouTube is obviously preying on these individuals' largesse and that is just as immoral as being a lazy slob that watches YouTube all day is. YouTube could have taken a proactive approach and showed the world how the web could enable much higher quality video, while limiting your digital footprint. But instead, they did the opposite, which is why I refuse to publish on their "platform."
> It is overwhelmingly obvious that YouTube designed their site in a way that would get people addicted to the point of needing a tool like this. The fact that they auto-play videos when they know the viewer is a child is downright disgusting.
I don't personally see a significant difference here versus something like cable TV. Do you think this issue carries over into that domain as well?
When it comes to childrens' programming, there are similarities, but major differences, too. Broadcast and cable television is programmed ahead of time, so parents can know when shows start and end, and it's usually predictable week-to-week. This, along with interstitial/mid-roll ads, cause the impact of constant availability and immediate access to be minimized compared to YouTube.
YouTube makes an effort to construct a unique and never-ending journey, filled with unpredictable outcomes. This constant "freshness" is something that they should have been a lot more careful introducing to the public. It not only makes viewing habits unpredictable, it also adds to the addictive nature of the platform.
EDIT: I'll also add, that it is not at all flattering to be considered on the same level as cable television. YouTube has simply taken their awful concepts and multiplied them to the Nth degree.
With cable TV parent does not have to hover over tablet every 5 minútes to ensure 8 years old is not watching nazi propaganda gull of lies about jews. If there is such propaganda, a. ) it is predictable b.) You are fucked anyway.
> "Predatory and addictive UX" in this case just refers to the fact that they have a good algorithm and setup that correctly shows me additional related content that I actually want to see.
Weird. My experience is that their recommendation algorithm is absolutely god awful at picking videos I actually want to see. For instance, it very often recommends videos I've already fucking watched.
First the new tools coming in Android P, now this. Interesting to see how serious Google appears to be about helping people better understand how they use their time.
Can they do it without someone else simply filling the vacuum left in their wake? Or do you mean something other than stopping creating things that steal attention/etc?
They could just design the system in such a way that it does not push for overconsumption to begin with. The whole thing is set up the way a drug pusher can only dream about and then they go and make these token efforts to stop the addiction.
The same happens here in NL with casinos, only the government is supposed to run them because they are so concerned for our well being and the potential for gambling addiction, but I've never seen them refuse someone gambling the childrens college fund away in a single evening.
Lately, I am reading about such product features a lot. I wonder if there is some kind of intelligence about class action suits in the making against tech sites like YouTube, Facebook etc for being addictive and dangerous to health, because I can't imagine these companies taking interest in these sort of things suo moto. Seems they are preempting a future legal hassle.
Share a similar cynical view of this, smells like a preemptive CYA move. Reminds me casinos with the help numbers for gambling addicts posted.
There's been high profile articles shining a light on the predatory design tactics in tech recently so the awareness of the issue is on the rise. The idea of a 'design ethicist' while novel seems fundamentally opposed to the attention-economy.
Overly cynical view is this is google angling to make the case to self-regulate vs. managing an intrusive regulatory body investigating/fining them for violations once more people are aware of the current shenanigans.
AFAIK there's no legal threats in the pipeline, I think they are wanting to avoid the negative media attention Facebook has been receiving. There doesn't need to be a legal threat, enough negative press could be very detrimental to their business model, which revolves around YouTube being a de facto monopoly in the video space.
Potato chip company: "We tired to make you stop eating them."
Customer: "Sell me more, I don't care if I'm fat."
Potato chip company: "OK, but make sure you read the nutrition panel on the back." (Hey guys, increase production, we have them hooked now!)
As long as auto play lives on, they show they have no interest in helping anyone watch less - and why should they pretend they care?
> You set Wind Down when you’d like to go to bed, and Android P will shift into a gray-scale palette
Oh they should really make this red-scale (red on black, no white light), not grey-scale, red is the only color that does not disturb night vision, and grey contains blue so disturbs sleep.
While these changes to YouTube are opt-in, it’s an interesting – and arguably responsible – position to take in terms of helping people manage their sometimes addictive behaviors around technology.
It would be easier to make that argument if they weren’t opt-in, and layered on top of an attention-monetizing economy.
I find it amusing that one of the choices is 180 minutes.
Yes, please remind me every three HOURS of non-stop videos that I watch that it might be time to take a break...but don't offer me a choice of every two hours.
I wonder if this phenomenon is age related. I chose not to regulate my game playing hours to something "healthy" in my teens and my early twenties. As I aged it wasn't an issue. I guess this is a thing now? How about you've been working 10 hours time to take a break? You've been married 20 years time to move on? Somewhat facetious but I was genuinely surprised they actually built these tools because that implies it's not a trivial issue in the population.
I don't need a babysitter to tell me when to stop doing things, but I'd love to be able to login to YouTube without having to be logged into the rest of Google.
That's one reason I think Twitch is killing YouTube in live-streaming: Like Reddit, I'm able to create a new Twitch account without having it affect the rest of my life online and I can be completely anonymous - they don't ask for a phone number or anything.
My issue with youtube is not that I cant stop watching. I have two issues:
1.) I watched one historical nazi movie due to attempt to learn. Why is it suggestig so many "holocaust did not happened" pieces and genuine white supremacist bs? Real story.
2.) I started with metal search. Why is it reversion g to pop so fast? I want metal. Definitely not Peppa the Pig. Wtf, I started with metal, not Peppa.
Interesting that google now has a "design ethicist", but in my opinion, the fact that he's not allowed to shut down the company means he has already failed
As a baseline it adds more than yours, right? He is for example, using humor to make the point that a toothless gesture doesn’t address the core issue. By contrast you’re just being pissy and reactive.
Correct. Anyone that's in these positions of moderating are only as effective as they are granted the power to potentially stop everything. If that person doesn't have the power, then it's just lip service.
By day, YouTube and Facebook sell us glass repair services, at a special price no less!
YT and FB could fix these social issues overnight, if they wanted to: turn off autoplay, turn off recommendations, restore chronological timelines, and dial down the ads. But they won't because that is the core of their business model.
Instead they offer bullshit mind-repair services to fix the damage they continue to do.