Season 1, Episode 8: YouTube Removing Dislikes

November 26, 2021

In 2005, a website named YouTube created a significant impact on the internet. c From 2005 to 2014, which was the golden age of YouTube, the individual could make a living in entertainment without getting into the industry. In 2015, YouTube decided to appeal to its advisers instead of their creators ending the golden age and starting the dark ages. YouTube became more corporate, creating a disconnect between the company and the creator. The most relevant example is YouTube privatizing dislikes. YouTube fails to establish a well-made agreement to privatize dislikes in their video, comments, and blogs.

In the video explaining the update, there is an actor, and he is not a YouTuber. This argument may sound nitpicking, but it shows YouTube cannot find a creator who agrees with their message. YouTube lies to their audience that creators support with the update. There is no excuse for hiring an actor because YouTube can connect multiple creators for YouTube Rewind, but they cannot find a representative to speak in the video. The actor states public dislike creates harassment since massive groups of people try to increase the dislike count like a game with a visible scoreboard. There is no sign of mass dislike for an individual. Only emotionless companies deal with massive dislikes. The top ten most disliked videos are from companies except for Justice Bieber's Baby. The reason for the mass dislikes has nothing to do with bullying. For example, Pinkfong's Baby Shark is an annoying and mindless song that appeals to children by getting them addicted to the internet. YouTube Rewind 2018 shows the disconnect between YouTube and their audiences by having irreverent influencers and reference cringy events in the video without any particular occurrence that impacted the website or made it unique. The actor states mass dislikes exist because of hatred for a creator and their beliefs. Two types of YouTubers get massive dislikes. The first type is companies because they make YouTube less about individual content and become more of a corporate downgrade. The second type is that the creators are horrible people. Dislikes are a form of accountability and warn the younger audience that their responses are unacceptable and ingenuine. One of the worst parts of the video is establishing creators can see the number of dislikes on Studio Analysis under the Engagement tab. The feature makes it difficult for a creator to look for feedback because there will be more work looking for the number of dislikes in a video. Also, creators should not have a choice to see the number of dislikes on their videos. They need that feedback to improve their videos.

YouTube answers some questions in the comment section. When people recommend making privatizing dislike optional, YouTube responds they are responsible for protecting their creator. The response is illogical because it is not the job of YouTube to protect other people's feelings, and it is the creator's responsibility to handle any negative feedback. When people ask about knowing whether a video is good or bad, YouTube states a viewer can use likes and comments to determine the quality of a video. The problem is public likes show the number of people with a positive opinion about the video. The majority of comments are not critical or too long for a general audience to read.

YouTube's blog fails to justify privatizing dislikes. The blog states it protects small creators from unfair attacks. Small creators like LankyTime disagree with the update because videos with mass dislikes could not affect the algorithm, and smaller creators want their audience to know the general opinion of their video with the like to dislike ratio. YouTube states the update is not a form of censorship. The statement is incorrect because the audience cannot publicly announce their opinions on a specific video. YouTube denies the accusations of trying to protect their brands and advertisers. In a previous statement, we know that most videos that face mass dislike are from companies. It can benefit large companies by getting rid of controversy because the news could not report fan backlash. Without any backlash, the company cannot look bad because the fans can express the disconnect between themselves and the company.

Resources