| ▲ | marcosscriven 5 hours ago |
| I’m sure I’ve clicked “show fewer shorts” every single time it’s shown me shorts. It seems to make zero difference. |
|
| ▲ | hightrix 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I’ve noticed this behavior for all Google properties. Every time I click “not interested” “don’t show me this again” or anything similar, it seems to have no effect as the best case. The worst case I’ve seen is when clicking these options seems to acts as a positive signal to show me more of that content. I’ve noticed this over years. As such, I’ve simply stopped interacting with googles recommendation systems and most of googles content delivery systems. Including using YouTube as minimally as possible. |
| |
| ▲ | SubiculumCode 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I feel like they don't use those signals, just time spent...and you spend more time fishing for the 'not interested' button | |
| ▲ | cwillu 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's the same in tiktok: there's literally a button that says “I'm not interested in any live videos”, but it keeps inserting livestreams into the feed anyway. | | | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | dijit 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I do the same, and after a day of doing it- they seem to go away for a time depending on the platform, but they always come back and sometimes they come back a lot. The web-browser is the least aggressive and I think I haven’t even seen them on Apple TV. The iPhone App is the most egregious offender of not respecting the request though, it seems to almost not care at all, and now the thumbnails on the home screen have started autoplaying (with audio) and I can’t find how to disable it (older instructions seem to be invalid). They have all the content though; so I have no choice but to deal with this, until a good enough competitor comes along and my favourite youtube channels upload to both places. |
| |
| ▲ | shermantanktop 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Auto play with audio needs to be controllable for accessibility. May be a regulatory requirement depending where you live. So it’s gotta be there somewhere. |
|
|
| ▲ | temporallobe 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That’s like the crosswalk button that does nothing. It’s there purely for the placebo effect. |
| |
| ▲ | bookofjoe 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | See also: call elevator to your floor buttons | | |
| ▲ | sib 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | How else do you get on the elevator? Wait for it to randomly appear? | | |
| ▲ | h3half an hour ago | parent [-] | | They might be getting mixed up with the “close door” button, which is something always included because it makes people feel better but when you order the elevator you can choose whether it actually does anything or not |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Strom 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| For me, clicking that hides shorts for 30 days and then I need to click it again. So it's a monthly ritual. |
|
| ▲ | mcv 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It used to be that they were gone for a month. Now they're gone for a day. Possibly less. |
|
| ▲ | atoav 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do you want $foo?
Yes | Ask again later
Modern tech companies behave like abusers or creepy stalkers. They won't take No for an answer. |
| |
| ▲ | marginalia_nu an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | To be fair, as long as you aren't logged in, that's the best you're going to get with cookies or local storage. | |
| ▲ | tomashubelbauer an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm disappointed that even Signal does this when asking you for access to your contacts. |
|
|
| ▲ | calmbonsai an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "My Eyes! The Goggles Do Nothing!"--Rainier Wolfcastle as Radioactive Man |
|
| ▲ | NewsaHackO 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's like pressing the "close door" button on an elevator. |
| |
| ▲ | fhub 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Door close button is supposed to cancel the door dwell time. But due to some disability codes in some regions all major manufactures allow it to be disabled (as required by some codes). i.e. The owners/managers/technicians can disable it. |
|
|
| ▲ | drnick1 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Clearly that is useless for people who browse YT anonymously, hence the usefulness of the list. |
|
| ▲ | api 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Short form video is addictive, so they want to push it. It maximizes time on site. |
| |
| ▲ | rconti 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's amazing that the algorithms are so universal rather than personalized.
You'd think they'd want to notice that I _absolutely never_ watch shorts, and stop showing them to me, instead recommending something else. I understand why FB/IG do it; I _occasionally_ give in and get sucked into a couple. But that NEVER happens to me with YT. | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > You'd think they'd want to notice that I _absolutely never_ watch shorts, and stop showing them to me, instead recommending something else. Oh they've noticed, and they just haven't found the right recco just yet to get you to watch. Bear with them, as they will eventually find you something. Even if it is just a video you would normally watched cropped to format. |
| |
| ▲ | derektank 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | As someone that pays for YouTube premium (and isn’t served ads), I don’t understand why they push Shorts to me too. Presumably they should want me to spend the bare minimum amount of time on YouTube necessary to keep me subscribed, as any further use just contributes to higher infrastructure and bandwidth costs. | | |
| ▲ | HWR_14 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Infrastructure and bandwidth cost savings aren't worth the risk that you start spending time on Netflix and cancel your subscription. | |
| ▲ | zem 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | they don't want you to realise that you're not watching it much and cancel your subscription |
|
|
|
| ▲ | lofaszvanitt 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The whole YT front page is an absolute utter clusterfook. |
|
| ▲ | halyconWays 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | ncr100 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Chafe them nipples. Seriously though, do any of our German / French compatriots here on HN have different experience of corporations, versus the USA's "maximizing profit" purpose, given the "corporate social responsibility" mandate of those countries? Greed (opportunism) is human and I wonder if that's "better" in the Germany or French corporate-world? | | |
| ▲ | i5heu 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Mhhh although this is a bit OT it is also very interesting: Germany has unions and works council.
It is required by law that companies allow works council to exist and if they exist they get certain rights. > In Germany, they serve two functions. The first is called co-determination, through which works councils elect members of the board of directors of German companies. The second is called participation, and means that works councils must be consulted about specific issues and have the right to make proposals to management.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council#Germany ) Also Germany has good amounts of regulations for certain issues (sometimes too much regulation but oh well). And Germany has many options to participate in local and regional politics that prevent the worst offenders. But in the end a company is still a company that is forced to act in a way that maximizes it's profits. I think from my perspective we do not have such wild predator companies like you see them in the US but there are certainly a few very dubious things going on. Except maybe the gGmbH and Vereine (clubs) which are companies and semi company structures that must act for the common good and without profit interest. And one funny thing is that in Germany stock companies are required to act to the "best interests of the company" and not the "best interests of the stock holder" - in German law the company includes the worker, the future of the company and social aspects. |
|
|
