Clickbait is unreasonably effective [video]
What&#x27;s left out of most discussions of clickbait are the questions of consequence and of engineered promotionn.<p>Clickbait is effective <i>where it can be employed without consequence</i>.  YouTube is one such domain.<p>It&#x27;s <i>inordinately</i> effective where algorithms promote material based on short-term appeal rather than long-term benefit.<p>Where either or both of these factors are addressed, clickbait doesn&#x27;t disappear entirely (it <i>does</i> hook into human psychology), but its effectiveness and power fall markedly.<p>YouTube does not support blocking of individual channels by users, or at least didn&#x27;t as of the last time I used it whilst logged in (some years ago).  If I&#x27;m presented with content that is absolute bilgewater, I cannot in any way indicate to the system &quot;do not show me content from this source at all ever&quot;.  This is the equivalent of a <i>privately-functioning</i> super-downvote, and is an exceedingly strong signal YouTUbe are denying themselves over content quality.  Its availability would be among the very few possible reasons I&#x27;d consider accessing the service other than anonymously (and preferably through a front-end such as Invidious or FixYT, or commandline &#x2F; terminal tools such as youtube-dl, mpv, or mps-youtube).  Eventually, YouTube might themselves consider re-jiggering their recommendations away from channels which are consistently blocked.<p>In the absence, attention and misdirection games can be played, repeatedly, without risk.<p>(Oh:  and quality contributors such as Derek Muller are also harmed by this as they&#x27;re competing with scum-sucking bottom feeders for their own far superior productions.)<p>The other aspect is that the algorithm itself promotes short-term engagement at the cost of not only long-term value and quality, but genuine social harm, as has been well documented over recent years.  (Including by Destin Sandler in an excellent 3-part series on online disinformation, the YouTube segment is here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;yewtu.be&#x2F;watch?v=1PGm8LslEb4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;yewtu.be&#x2F;watch?v=1PGm8LslEb4</a>)  This means that the <i>existing</i> psychological highjacking is further juiced algorithmically.<p>On desktop systems where the option is available to me, I use CSS hacks to remove <i>both</i> recommendations <i>and</i> comments from YouTube.  The experience improves tremendously. (Stylish: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;addon&#x2F;stylish&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;addons.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;firefox&#x2F;addon&#x2F;stylish&#x2F;</a> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;chrome.google.com&#x2F;webstore&#x2F;detail&#x2F;stylish-custom-themes-for&#x2F;fjnbnpbmkenffdnngjfgmeleoegfcffe" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;chrome.google.com&#x2F;webstore&#x2F;detail&#x2F;stylish-custom-the...</a> though the uBlock Origin elements remover can also be used for this.)<p>I&#x27;ve just had an exchange with dang about a recent submission and site which makes no bones about its dedication to pseudoscience and disinformation.  Hacker News <i>does</i> have a policy of penalising (though not completely blocking) such sites.  In our back-and-forth, dang offered (tongue-in-cheek, I&#x27;m pretty sure), that any strict &quot;no bullshit&quot; rule would render much of the present-day Internet inadmissable on HN.  The longer I think that over, the more my response is &quot;Yes, and that would be a Good Thing.&quot;<p>(I&#x27;m well aware if issues with truth-determination, epistemology, simple errors, politically-motivated censorship, and more.  I&#x27;m referring here to publishers and authors who specifically and categorically defend posting of bullshit, though that&#x27;s not the full extent of what I&#x27;d object to.  I refer to Dante&#x27;s <i>Inferno</i> in which it is the 8th of the 9 circles to which false counselors, falsifiers, hypocrits, schismatics, corrupt politicians, flatterers, pimps, and seducers are consigned.  Violations of trust strike at the very heart of polity and civilisation.)<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;thumbnails-visually.netdna-ssl.com&#x2F;dante-alighieris-inferno_50290aae6f2f5_w1500.png" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;thumbnails-visually.netdna-ssl.com&#x2F;dante-alighieris-i...</a><p>In my experience on the non-commerial, non-algorithmic, and distributed social platforms of Mastodon &#x2F; the Fediverse and Diaspora, I find that whilst bullshit isn&#x27;t entirely absent, its role is much reduced.<p>There is no algorithm to juice its spread.<p>On Mastodon, instances can elect to federate fully, partially, or not at all with others. Smaller instances can define and tune their interactions with others quite specifically.  (The instance I&#x27;m on, toot.cat, run by a long-time online friend, has a substantial list of limited and silenced servers:  <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;toot.cat&#x2F;about&#x2F;more" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;toot.cat&#x2F;about&#x2F;more</a>)<p>Diaspora dates from somewhat earlier, and has a more open philosophy toward content, though repeat disinformation, attacks and threats, and spam <i>are</i> dealt with in at least part.  Among my contacts, we share information on block-worthy profiles based on various criteria.  (Such informal lists are a frequent occurrence, especially in the absence of more powerful tools.  They&#x27;re not without their own risks and failure modes, including inadvertent or unwarranted inclusion.)<p>The larger point though is that clickbait is a phenomenon actively and intentionally supported by algorithmic social media to serve its short-term benefits.  It does so at its own long-term cost.