YouTube is cracking down on clickbait
YouTube is cracking down on clickbait
Thumbnail:
They’re doing WHAT!?! —>
(⓿_⓿)
Two hours later with a changed titled and thumbnail:
Fix YouTube clickbait with this one simple trick….
YouTube says the policy will combat “egregious” clickbait that misleads viewers, with a particular focus on videos related to “breaking news” or “current events.” The company’s examples of egregious clickbait include a video with the title “the president resigned!” that doesn’t actually address a resignation or a “top political news” thumbnail attached to a video with no news content.
This is only going to target garbage-level content. You can still expect the same clickbait-style titles and thumbnails from established creators
I think you’ve correctly identified their self-interest over altruism, but you’ve misidentified the internal value of discouraging clickbait. YouTube is a treasure trove for building training datasets, and its value increases when metadata like thumbnails, descriptions, titles, and tags can be trusted.
It’s the AI gold rush; notice how this coincides with options to limit or disable third-party training but not first-party training? It coincides but is definitely not a coincidence.
Makes it hard to get real news on it
Well there’s your problem. Why the fuck are you trying to get news on Youtube?!
This will address extreme and obvious falsehoods but I still encounter clickbait of the more pedestrian kind everywhere I go. “You’re using your table saw WRONG” or “the 1 table saw trick 99% of people don’t know” etc.
I consider this clickbait: it creates a false sense of urgency and doesn’t convey any information in itself. What is this one trick? Oh I already knew that one, but I had to watch the video to realize that.
It wastes a lot of time and makes things harder to search for. And often these clickbait headlines are not in the video headline where YT can easily scan them, but in the thumbnail graphic in huge letters, where it’s probably harder to automate any moderation for.
I pay for YT premium but this aspect of the experience still feels ad-like and cheap.
The fix was there, but they removed it.
Return YouTube Dislikes still exists. The likes and dislikes of RYD users are stored in an external database, so Google cannot take them away.
It’s completely inaccurate though. It can show massive amounts of faux dislikes that don’t actually exist. This has been confirmed with youtubers, who still see the dislike ratio on their backend.
I’d say the “actual” dislike numbers are completely inaccurate because what’s the point of disliking a video in an environment where the dislikes don’t count?
RYD extrapolates the like/dislike ratio as stored on their own server to the like numbers as displayed by YouTube. That’s not secret information. They spell it out in their FAQ.
If anything, if you like more representative numbers, get more people to install RYD.
Unless YouTube is using that data to not recommend crappy videos, then it’s completely pointless.
YouTube never did that anyway. YouTube recommends videos on user engagement. Thumb buttons in any direction are engagement. They have slightly hidden “don’t recommend video/channel” options for that.
What RYD does is to show what others think.
The fact they never used that data in video recommendations is surprising
So you never clicked dislike, just to get recommendations for the same channel / type of video over and over again? I thought everyone figured that out by now. These are the menu items that actually do the trick:
This is not official
Neither was the previous workaround which IIRC required some JavaScript trickery with the web player.
it wasn’t a workaround, it was a feature built into the YouTube app that is made by Google. I can’t believe I have to explain this. Lol
You wrote “there was a fix” which I assumed you meant one of those user scripts / browser extensions that let users access removed features for a while. Pretty sure this worked with downvotes for a while but not in an official capacity.
One of the greatest channels on YouTube, in terms of quality content, is Mentour Pilot (and his other channel, Mentour Now). He releases videos weekly, I think. They’re remarkably high production value, well-researched, well-written, informative, and fascinating.
His thumbnails and many of his titles are awful. Clickbait, capitalization, arrows pointing at stuff, etc.
There are of course people who do the clickbait stuff and make terrible content.
There are people who don’t do the clickbait stuff, some of whom make good content and some who make terrible content.
Whether you try to get as much value from the platform as you can doesn’t indicate the quality of your work. Some people play the game, some don’t.
It’s more a matter of whether you do YT for yourself, or for the money.
Frankly, the people doing the former should be leaving Youtube for Peertube. I feel like Fediverse advocates ought to be trying to figure out ways to court them.
I logged off and then started looking for titties…the tape project, dancers wearing next to nothing, African tribe dancing naked, body paint, see thru lingerie hauls, cleaning naked hauls, breast feeding tities…my YouTube is now embarrassing pornographical without me loving in.
YouTube is not for kids.
Youtube literally tell their wagies they need to make click but like this ugly ass thumbnails with up-close mug shots.
I am not sure what data they have to support it but I don't click these thumbnails but mrbeastade a career off them lol

Web architecture was flawed.
They went the simple fast way in times when changing a few completely incompatible realizations while looking for the working one was fine. People still used not just Apple and IBM PCs, but also Amiga and various kinds of Unix. Web reading via e-mail was a popular service. Many different technologies to get some connectivity to the big world. FIDO and so on.
So it probably seemed intuitive that when it becomes problematic, people will think of something better and stop using the flawed thing.
Except that assumption relied on fragmentation and incompatibility and variability, things that useful idiots for corporations were vilifying in late 90s and 00s, and managed to kill around late 00s.
So. Engagement-driven model is pretty similar to casinos. It’s profitable and anti-customer. What allows it in the Web - lack of separation between connectivity, storage and identities.
One can say it differently - the Web application layer should be higher than it is. IP and DNS can identify a site, that is, a computer or a cluster or something united. But they shouldn’t identify a website. Quite obviously. A website shouldn’t go down for the sole reason of some computer somewhere being shut down.
It also simply makes sense for the Web to work as some kind of a version control system - it just came into existence before those became the norm for things, well, requiring version control.
I don’t want to write yet another time what everyone will find by themselves in that direction of thought. In short, WWW was an experiment at networked hypertext systems, similar to Gopher, but nicer. It was intended for nice cool library things. It wasn’t intended as the “information superhighway”. Another system actually was - Usenet. Usenet lacks that flaw of the Web.
Except Usenet is morally obsolete. Some new kind of it, with cryptographic identities of users and of groups, some sort of “websites” represented by sequence of update messages in the same group (here’s version control), and probably something like realtime group chats, would be cool.
Top talent who made careers on clickbait will not be harmed
Pedophiles on set, no problem
Scamming people, no problem
Advertising and selling spoiled food, no problem
Say suicide, demonetized 🤡