The state of youtube
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
(Copy-pasted warning)
I believe that YouTube is currently shooting itself in the foot with every decision it makes. I am arguing that the "Algorithm" is unfair, The trending videos are incorrect assumptions of what people want to watch, And the executives have lost touch with their viewers. I will make 2 of this debate, With one being a specific challenge against Thoht, And one being up for grabs.
First round for acceptance, Stating position, Etc.
I will attempt to sum up the burden of proof as allowed by debart. Maybe I'll get lucky and the dictator won't come along and moderate me. But I'm not holding me breath (SUPPORT UNMODERATED VOTING)
Argument point.
Con's argument revolved around copyrights and demonetization. The driving implication is that youtube is too strict and is screwing people out of money that, in pro's opinion, they have earned.
Con linked youtube videos in order to demonstrate this point. which are essentially as helpful as any source would be in a normal debate. It wasn't enough for a source point, but it was enough for me to be compelled by his argument. I essentially agree with most everything that Con said but let's move on to Pro first.
I will admit that even still, my knee jerk reaction is to go with Con on this argument. But I must also admit that Pro's argument is both valid and highly compelling. Pro rightly points out that what Con said was not enough to warrant shutting down youtube. Pro pointed out that not everybody shares Con's position and this point is very powerful in this case since the debate is broadly about the state of youtube in general.
Pro made a strong case for the benefits of youtube outweighing the harms by stating that it's one of the few platforms that helps to promotes the spreading of free ideas.
Pro also points out that while Con finds the most popular content to be childish, that youtube was not designed for intellectual entertainment necessarily.
Further rounds allowed for little clarification and in the end, Pro ended up with his point standing on top.
Argument point to Pro.
All other points tied.
RFD in comments
This debate appears to be the issues with YouTube’s algorithms and monetization policy.
Con is taking the position that their copyright enforcement appears excessive, that their demonetization of fringe content unreasonably sanitizes content and forces edgy video makers to sell out and become mainstream to continue earning money. Con also points out that kid friendly, copycats and a variety of other vacuous content can easily succeed as it is not specifically targeted by these same algorithms
On their face these seem valid examples of bad policy.
Pros argument is to try and twist the resolution to an absurdly unfair and unreasonable extent by arguing that pro must show that YouTube is not able to continue. This is an asinine and ridiculous statement and I’m going to ignore it and focus on the reasonable and stated resolution and explanation in the description - focusing on the idea that YouTube is making poor decisions.
Pros position on this front is to show these decisions are reasonable.
Pros argument is to basically confusing the algorithm for trending videos with the whole of cons argument.
On the trending side, I can buy pros point that if millions like it, just because con doesn’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not trending; but this is only a tiny aspect of cons argument.
Pro rounds this off by claiming other platforms are worse.
Even if I buy all of this, con clearly has the edge in the first round as the majority of issues are ignore.
Con goes on to reiterate his objections - by pointing out that YouTube is harming content makers with using algorithms to unreasonably select less offensive and middle of the road content - which is harmful for freedom of expression.
Pros response, has little relation to what was presented. He tries to respond to cons argument that YouTube copyright responses are harsh, by saying its not YouTube that report it (which in my opinion is not the point)
Pro also makes a single point about marijuana usage and portrayal of illegal acts justifying censorship.
It’s a shame, as I feel the examples con raised could have been challenged far better and more conclusively, pro offers a minimal (putting it charitably) set of arguments against cons position - and doesn’t address any of the main points raised.
As a result, arguments to con.
Conduct to con for the forfeit.
Thank you for the vote, it really made my day to see I got my points across in the perspective of another user.
What I meant by this is not that the algorithm should be increased or decreased, I mean it should be changed. The youtubers that are "idiots" getting popular is a direct effect of the algorithm being too harsh and only allowing child-friendly content. The idiot youtubers would then fall out through natural community selection, rather than being censored by the algorithm. An example of this is N&A productions, which receives a like-dislike ratio averaging 1-8, as well as multiple viral hate comments and two hate videos. (Which ARE hate but are also totally legitimate, not being hateful for race or accent but instead being hateful for content.)
If youtube were to open up the algorithm and change around the requirements to get on hot, N&A would still be monetized, but other deserving youtubers would earn their spots in trending. My argument is very clear to me, but I probably didn't get it across quite right, so hopefully that will be enough to clarify.
Why didn't you vote
“That is completely ridiculous to assume. Pro is hereby stating that Con has contradicted their own case. Either Con is arguing that YT is censoring too much or that it's too free for stupid people to succeed in with poor content.”
This is a very valid point which proves that Con is a hypocrite since he is complaining about youtube not having enough regulation to prevent idiots from getting popular while also complaining about how YouTube is censoring too much.
Very obviously this is a clear contradiction, you can’t argue for YouTube to be a free platform while at the same time arguing for YouTube to regulate the algorithm.
Because of Con very obviously being a hypocrite and his entire argument falling apart as demonstrated by these two examples, I must award argument
RFD:
One of Cons main arguments for why youtube is turning into a dumpster fire is that the algorithm is unfair and the trending videos are garbage.
Which Pro pointed out that
“ The opinion of one person like Con or even a few hundred, that complain about its trending videos should never be enough reason for it to disregard the many millions who are the very up-voters and view-providers that lead to the algorithm putting those Trending videos on top.”
This is a very valid argument since the majority of videos that end up on the trending page and get the favor in the algorithm are videos that are liked and get millions of views.
It’s very obvious that Con has lost this point since he will now have to argue that his subjective opinion is superior to millions of subjective opinion. Which is an absurd argument to make since there is nothing wrong with the trending videos being the most popular videos.
A point to which Con never rebutted
I believe that where Con really failed was Con making the argument was arguing that youtube should be more free, but then at the same time complaining it’s too free to the point where idiots are getting the most subscribers.
To which Pro responded with