A tough position faces YouTube, the most popular video-sharing site on the Internet. In an effort to make YouTube a safer and more pleasant environment, the site is eliminating the power of thumbs-down video ratings.
Many YouTubers, including the co-founder Jawed Karim, have complained about the shift. Will the backlash force YouTube’s hand, restoring the full power of negative user sentiment, or has it already been written in stone?
The update to Google’s market-leading video service is quite basic. The thumbs-down button isn’t going anywhere, but viewers will be unable to assess how many bad reviews a certain video has. The number of thumbs-up ratings will not change.
The dislike count is visible behind the scenes to creators, and the negative clicks will be incorporated into the algorithms that determine every YouTube user’s stream of suggested videos. It’s just the public display of negative I’m-not-a-fan ratings that is gone.
All YouTube viewers are currently receiving the modification. You may or may not be able to access it right now.
The broader concept is pretty harmless. Certain films were discovered to have an unintended use of the dislike button, with increasing amounts of negative evaluations being handled as if they were “a game with a visible scoreboard.” These storms of “dislike” mouse clicks had nothing to do with the video itself, but rather targeted certain video creators and “what they stand for.”
With visible thumbs-down counts, YouTube conducted some tests to see if the quieter version encourages less of this undesirable behavior. In the hope of moderating the hostile and divisive misuse of thumbs-down ratings, YouTube has adopted a standard policy for all future videos.
“Honestly, I believe you’ll get used to it rather quickly. Keep in mind that other platforms don’t even have a dislike button,” Koval concluded his video on the subject.
The undeclared number of dislikes was quickly rejected by some YouTubers. The general consensus is that the bad reviews are an important and beneficial tool for directing viewers toward high-quality videos, and that it’s a terrible idea to eliminate public count.
Other video sites such as TikTok and Instagram, according to YouTuber Marques Brownlee (15 million subscribers, 2.8 billion total video views), do not offer negative ratings, but they are nevertheless distinct from YouTube.
Other video-centric social networking sites are little more than “content recommendation engines” that aim to maximize viewership in platform-by-platform popularity contests. As a general rule, Google’s YouTube is considerably more popular than its own search engine. It also functions as a “large search engine,” as one might expect from a tool under the wing of search-giant Google. As a result, Google’s service makes less sense than the TikToks and Instagrams of the world, since limiting not-too-good feedback from viewers who didn’t find what they were looking for in an instructional video or an opinion piece makes sense.
The most popular YouTuber on YouTube, PewDiePie (110 million subscribers, 28 billion views), agreed with Brownlee. Negative reviews may be helpful in real-world searches for high-quality material. The two stars also stated that “certain videos truly do need public criticism,” as PewDiePie put it.
It’s a common misconception that popularity equals quality. You may need to understand something about the quality of your search results in order to avoid being duped. Entertainment for the sake of entertainment does not have to be entertaining.
Finally, YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim made his feelings known in an original manner. Instead of releasing a new video, blog article, or podcast about it, he altered the description to the platform’s first ever video. The timeless nature of “Me at the Zoo,” an 18-second slice of life featuring Jawed in front of a few elephants, makes it a valuable broadcasting possibility. It has nearly 203 million views to date, with over 11 million comments, 10 million likes, and 225,000 negative reactions.
The new video is described as a “universally disliked change,” and the video description now claims that not one of the service’s content providers supports it. Jawed’s video description reads:
But why? Because not all user-generated content is great. It simply can’t be. In fact, the vast majority of it is terrible. And that’s just fine. The notion never was that all information was high quality.
As a result, dissatisfied users must be permitted to express themselves. Otherwise, the system would collapse.
Jawed asked, “Does YouTube want to become a location where everything is just okay? Nothing can be excellent if nothing is terrible.”
In certain aspects and in certain lights, YouTube’s objectives make sense.
Even if it means giving up platform-defining elements, making the video platform less prone to random acts of exclusion and derision is beneficial in its own right. The rating system has previously been altered — from a five-star scale to like-or-dislike alternatives in 2009 — and it may be argued that it was better off as a result. But suppose the new system makes YouTube behave more like TikTok and Instagram, which might not be such a bad idea. The new YouTube Shorts module is another step in that direction anyhow. Let’s just embrace change and go with the flow!
One significant reason for this gloomy conclusion is that it overlooks one key factor. YouTube isn’t some upstart attempting to catch up with the big winners. It’s a market leader with a distinct niche that its biggest competitors can’t easily copy, and it has no plans to change course anytime soon (or ever?).
Google should double down on quality and let the rest compete based on total viewership numbers. Advertisers will pay a premium for a more engaged audience, which is why we’re seeing an increase in high-quality content.
The business is already blossoming. Ad sales grew 43% year over year in the third quarter to $7.2 billion. I can’t predict what will happen if the useful quality ratings are replaced by a popularity contest, which publishes only kind comments and hides the negative. But it wouldn’t surprise me if a significant portion of the YouTube audience moved on to other platforms, turning YouTube into yet another TikTok imitation with an extensive and colorful past.
That would be a real tragedy for YouTube users and Alphabet investors. I give the planned content-rating system shift a thumbs down as an Alphabet shareholder. Please don’t do it, YouTube.
A YouTuber from Utah has been arrested and charged with accepting fraudulent claims from AAA.
A hurricane man known for a popular YouTube channel called “Matt’s Off Road Recovery” has been charged with insurance fraud and accused of defrauding AAA through his firm, Winder Towing.
The arraignment for Matthew David Wetzel, 46, who was charged in late October with one count of making a false or fraudulent insurance claim, a second degree felony, is scheduled for next week. AAA is accused of paying more than $15,000 to Winder Towing in order to cover allegations made with known misrepresentations between January 2019 and August 2020.
According to charging papers, the Utah Insurance Fraud Division was contacted by a consumer with a complaint about AAA. After an investigation, the division determined that many of the claims made to AAA had significant errors regarding the claimed services or tow locations, according to court documents.
In one case, AAA covered three claims for a vehicle tow to Salt Lake City, totaling $2,800. The claim recipient told the Utah Insurance Fraud Division that his automobiles were not towed as he had stated in the claims. The individual agreed to receive construction supplies from Wetzel and the unnamed person submitted claims to AAA instead of paying Wetzel directly, according to the allegations.
According to the allegations, Wetzel accepted responsibility for fraudulent claims in a phone conversation, stating that he had supplied towing services to the individual on separate occasions and asking him to file an AAA claim rather of requesting payment or billing the customer at the time of service.
According to the complaint, Wetzel also allegedly stated that he would provide services without immediately billing the person, then later ask them to submit a claim.
“According to the investigator, Wetzel said he never completed a project that did not have a real service associated with it,” according to the report.
In another case, charging documents claim that Wetzel assisted with a tow for someone who did not have an AAA membership. According to the complaint, Wetzel advised the individual to join AAA, wait a few days before filing a claim, and so on. The paperwork claims Wetzel advised the customer to obtain an AAA membership, wait a few days before filing a claim, and so on. According to authorities in Apple Valley, California, charges were filed for a tow from Las Vegas to Washington County when the actual tow was from Apple Valley.
The third instance of fraud charged in the accusations was for an off-road tow of a Polaris RZR, which is not covered by AAA, according to the document. The owner of the RZR reportedly utilized his buddy’s AAA membership and stated that Wetzel’s business towed a truck rather than the RZR.
Video of the tow and Wetzel speaking to the owners was recorded, according on the paper, then posted to Wetzel’s YouTube channel, which features videos of off-road tows.
The channel has nearly 900,000 subscribers.
A Norwegian YouTuber is said to have perished after tumbling into a lake while on a filming journey — only days before his 57th birthday in a video.
According to reports and a Facebook post from his reported partner, the Norwegian YouTuber known as “apetor,” whose real name is Tor Eckhoff, died after he fell into an ice lake while on a trip to shoot a video.
According to the Norwegian news source Verdans Gang, an American-born Norwegian died on Saturday after he fell into the water at Jakobs Dam near Kongsberg on Friday. He was 57 years old.
Eckhoff, a well-known YouTuber who has more than 1.2 million followers and 389 million views on YouTube, posted videos of his adventures in Norway, frequently skating on frozen lakes and showcasing animal encounters and picturesque landscapes.
Eckhoff’s most recent video, which was posted on November 22, is titled “I am Not Dead, I am 57 Today,” and it’s written in English. Over the last five years since he was 53, Eckhoff has uploaded a birthday video with a similar name to commemorate his age.
According to Verdens Gang, Eckhoff lived with Tove Skjerven, who stated in a Facebook post on the “apetor” page on Sunday that Eckhoff was going on a vacation to film himself ice skating for a video.
Skjerven wrote in the blog, which is in English, that divers rescued Eckhoff from the cold water and took him to a hospital. Despite efforts to save his life, he died on Saturday after doctors “turned off all the machines that had kept your body going,” Skjerven wrote.
On Saturday, police in Norway’s South-East Police District said that firefighters had rescued a man in his 50s from Kongsberg who had fallen through the ice into the water and that a rescue helicopter was transporting him to Ullevål hospital.
The South-East Police District declined to answer questions, stating that it is “unable to discuss an ongoing investigation.”
In his “About” section on his YouTube channel, Eckhoff stated that he was born in 1964, resides in the coastal city of Sandefjord, and works as a painter. He claimed to have gained 200,000 subscribers in August 2018 and 1 million followers last December, according to the page. According to the profile, the channel was established in October 2006; only a year after 2005 when the platform opened.
In his most recent video, which has been viewed over 1 million times and liked 57,000 times, Eckhoff joyfully guzzled alcohol while strolling around outside kissing a tree and lying in a tub of murky water. People are mourning him by commenting that they’re remembering all the time they spent watching his videos and hoping he “rests in peace.”
Skjerven was also well-known on Instagram, where he had 66,000 followers and posted images from his travels. Skjerven did not respond to a request for comment.
Our hearts go out to the friends and family of apetor, who passed away tragically this weekend. our thoughts are with you in this difficult time.
Customers were defrauded by the Chanel advent calendar.
TikTok users have exposed the low-cost items that Chanel included in their advent calendar.
Customers were defrauded by the Chanel advent calendar. Tiktok users have exposed the low-cost items that Chanel included in their 2021 advent calendar. Over the past few days, TikTok videos have been surfacing of the Coco Chanel advent calendar, a calendar that’s worth over $800. Although, the gifts included have not been equalling to a value of $800.
A TikTok user, @eliseharmon shared videos of her opening the product, only to be disappointed. Each video she has shared have reached over 7 million views, while the numbers are increasing.
She found that the majority of the items were low-cost and not worth the $800 price tag. Items included in the advent calendar are; a plastic bracelet made with cheap string, stickers, temporary tattoos, and more stickers.
The only valuable items to be shown are 2 red lipsticks and 1 nail polish.
Fans have now taken it upon themselves to call out to Chanel, demanding refunds and telling them they need to release a better advent calendar. Over the past two days, Chanel received intense backlash through TikTok and deleted their account. Throughout Instagram, backlash comments are on the rise.
Chanel has yet to make a comment on the products and the videos that’ve been released. Although, they continue to try and monitor comments through Instagram, and are trying to delete them as they roll in.