Google Became Evil: Altering Political Search Results, Tracking Your Every Move

google internet

EXCLUSIVE: DOCUMENTS DETAILING GOOGLE’S ‘NEWS BLACKLIST’ SHOW MANUAL MANIPULATION OF SPECIAL SEARCH RESULTS

J. Arthur Bloom 04/09/2019

Google does manipulate its search results manually, contrary to the company’s official denials, documents obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller indicate.

Two official policies dubbed the “misrepresentation policy” and the “good neighbor policy” inform the company’s “XPA news blacklist,” which is maintained by Google’s Trust & Safety team. “T&S will be in charge of updating the blacklist as when there is a demand,” reads one of the documents shared with The Daily Caller.

“The deceptive_news domain blacklist is going to be used by many search features to filter problematic sites that violate the good neighbor and misrepresentation policies,” the policy document says.

That document reads that it was, “approved by gomes@, nayak@, haahr@ as of 8/13/2018.” Ben Gomes is Google’s head of search, who reports directly to CEO Sundar Pichai. Pandu Nayak is a Google Fellow, and Paul Haahr is a software engineer, whose bio on Google’s internal network Moma indicates that he is also involved in, “fringe ranking: not showing fake news, hate speech, conspiracy theories, or science/medical/history denial unless we’re sure that’s what the user wants.”

“The purpose of the blacklist will be to bar the sites from surfacing in any Search feature or news product. It will not cause a demotion in the organic search results or de-index them altogether,” reads the policy document obtained by the Caller. What that means is that targeted sites will not be removed from the “ten blue links” portion of search results, but the blacklist applies to most of the other search features, like “top news,” “videos” or the various sidebars that are returned as search results.

Read More: https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/09/google-news-blacklist-search-manipulation/

Google Exec Finally Admits to Congress That They’re Tracking Us Even with ‘Location’ Turned Off

By PAULA BOLYARD March 12, 2019

A Google executive admitted during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday that Google tracks users’ phones  — even when their location history is turned off.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) questioned Google Senior Privacy Counsel Will DeVries about the company’s tracking policies during a hearing examining online consumer privacy. Some of DeVries’ answers will likely disturb consumers who thought there was a way to avoid being tracked by Google through their phones.

In his prepared remarks, DeVries told lawmakers that “the processing of personal information is necessary to simply operate the service the user requested.” He asserted that “requiring” individuals to control every aspect of data processing “can create a burdensome and complex experience that diverts attention from the most important controls without corresponding benefits,” and therefore a “specific consent or toggle” should not be required for every use of data.

“I’m concerned about the implicit bargain that consumers are being asked to ratify by which they supposedly get free services but actually have enormous amounts of personal data extracted from them without knowing exactly what’s going on,” Hawley said. He asked DeVries about his claims in his prepared remarks that Google provides “free” services and that the company “clearly explains” how personal data is used. “Is that really true?”

DeVries explained that it’s “complicated” — a word that he used several times as he tried to evade Hawley’s questions about why Google tracks its users’ locations.

An Associated Press report in August 2018 found that “many Google services on Android devices and iPhones store your location data even if you’ve used a privacy setting that says it will prevent Google from doing so.”

“Storing your minute-by-minute travels carries privacy risks and has been used by police to determine the location of suspects — such as a warrant that police in Raleigh, North Carolina, served on Google last year to find devices near a murder scene,” the AP explained.

Read More: https://pjmedia.com/trending/google-tracks-you-even-when-location-is-turned-off-google-exec-finally-admits-to-congress/

Google Alters Political Search Results: Used it’s Power to Effect the 2018 Elections

EXCLUSIVE — Research: Google Search Manipulation Can Swing Nearly 80 Percent of Undecided Voters

ALLUM BOKHARI

By inserting negative search suggestions under the name of a candidate, search engines like Google can shift the opinions of undecided voters by up to 43.4 percent, according to new research by a team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and reported exclusively by Breitbart News.

The lead author of the study, Dr. Robert Epstein, has previously conducted research into what he calls the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME). This research showed that the manipulation of results pages in search engines can shift the voting preferences of undecideds by anywhere between 20 and 80 percent, depending on the demographic.

His latest research looks at how search engines can affect voters by suggesting negative or positive search terms when a political candidate’s name is entered into the search bar. Dr. Epstein’s research found that when negative search terms are suggested for a candidate, it can have a dramatic effect on voter opinion.

Read More: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/24/exclusive-research-google-search-manipulation-can-swing-nearly-80-percent-undecided-voters/

Google Workers Discussed Tweaking Search Function to Counter Travel Ban

Company says none of proposed changes to search results were ever implemented

WASHINGTON—Days after the Trump administration instituted a controversial travel ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed ways they might be able to tweak the company’s search-related functions to show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers and government agencies, according to internal company emails.

The email traffic, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, shows that employees proposed ways to “leverage” search functions and take steps to counter what they considered to be “islamophobic,…

‘THE SMOKING GUN’: Google Manipulated YouTube Search Results for Abortion, Maxine Waters, David Hogg

ALLUM BOKHARI

In sworn testimony, Google CEO Sundar Pichai told Congress last month that his company does not “manually intervene” on any particular search result. Yet an internal discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News reveals Google regularly intervenes in search results on its YouTube video platform – including a recent intervention that pushed pro-life videos out of the top ten search results for “abortion.”

The term “abortion” was added to a “blacklist” file for “controversial YouTube queries,” which contains a list of search terms that the company considers sensitive. According to the leak, these include some of these search terms related to: abortion, abortions, the Irish abortion referendum, Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and anti-gun activist David Hogg.

The existence of the blacklist was revealed in an internal Google discussion thread leaked to Breitbart News by a source inside the company who wishes to remain anonymous. A partial list of blacklisted terms was also leaked to Breitbart by another Google source.

Read More: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/01/16/google-youtube-search-blacklist-smoking-gun/

Google and the Obama Administration

Google Ministry of Truth

Google Makes Most of Close Ties to White House

By Brody Mullins

WASHINGTON—As the federal government was wrapping up its antitrust investigation of Google Inc., company executives had a flurry of meetings with top officials at the White House and Federal Trade Commission, the agency running the probe.

Google co-founder Larry Page met with FTC officials to discuss settlement talks, according to visitor logs and emails reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt met with Pete Rouse, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, in the White House.

Lifting the covers on ‘Obamoogle’

An antitrust probe went away while Google snuggled with Obama

– Monday, March 30, 2015

During this past week as we’ve been swamped with bad news pouring out of every corner of the globe, it wouldn’t be surprising if you missed one of the more shocking revelations about White House actions that would make even Richard Nixon blush.

The Wall Street Journal revealed that it had obtained a 2012 Federal Trade Commission report detailing the closeness of Google and the Obama administration while the FTC was engaging in an antitrust investigation of the Internet giant.

It’s usually the case that you get more interesting information when the details were supposed to remain secret, and that’s the case here. The FTC, responding to an open-records request, accidentally sent 160 pages of a private 2012 report to the The Wall Street Journal, detailing their antitrust investigation into Google.

What was disclosed paints a picture of unusual activity between the White HouseGoogle and the FTC while the antitrust investigation was being conducted. Ultimately, the FTC staff recommended bringing a lawsuit against Google on antitrust grounds. Despite this, the commission voted 5-0 against charges.

Read More: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/30/tammy-bruce-obamagoogle-connection/

THE ANDROID ADMINISTRATION

Google’s Remarkably Close Relationship With the Obama White House, in Two Charts

April 22 2016

WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA announced his support last week for a Federal Communications Commission plan to open the market for cable set-top boxes — a big win for consumers, but also for Google — the cable and telecommunications giants who used to have a near-stranglehold on tech policy were furious. AT&T chief lobbyist Jim Cicconi lashed out at what he called White House intervention on behalf of “the Google proposal.”

He’s hardly the first to suggest that the Obama administration has become too close to the Silicon Valley juggernaut.

Over the past seven years, Google has created a remarkable partnership with the Obama White House, providing expertise, services, advice, and personnel for vital government projects.

Precisely how much influence this buys Google isn’t always clear. But consider that over in the European Union, Google is now facing two major antitrust charges for abusing its dominance in mobile operating systems and search. By contrast, in the U.S., a strong case to sanction Google was quashed by a presidentially appointed commission.

It’s a relationship that bears watching. “Americans know surprisingly little about what Google wants and gets from our government,” said Anne Weismann, executive director of Campaign for Accountability, a nonprofit watchdog organization. Seeking to change that, Weismann’s group is spearheading a data transparency project about Google’s interactions in Washington.

Read More: https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close-relationship-with-the-obama-white-house-in-two-charts/

 

Facebook: Globalist, Oligarch Surveillance-and-Control Operation

zuckerberg soros facebook

Government to Facebook Pipeline Reveals a Corrupt Mix of Social Media and the State

The next time someone tells you that “Facebook is a private company” ask them if they know about the dozens of government employees who fill its ranks.

As the Free Thought Project has previously reported, the phrase “Facebook is a private company” is not accurate as they have formed a partnership with an insidious neoconservative “think tank” known as the Atlantic Council which is directly funded and made up of groups tied to the pharmaceutical industry, the military industrial complex, and even government itself. The Atlantic Council dictates to Facebook who is allowed on the platform and who is purged.

Because the Atlantic Council is funded in part by the United States government—and they are making decisions for Facebook—this negates the claim that the company is private.

Since our six million followers and years of hard work were wiped off the platform during the October purge, TFTP has consistently reported on the Atlantic Council and their ties to the social media giant. This week, however, we’ve discovered something just as ominous—the government to Facebook pipeline and revolving door.

It is a telltale sign of a corrupt industry or company when they create a revolving door between themselves and the state. Just like Monsanto has former employees on the Supreme Court and Pharmaceutical industry insiders move back and fourth from the FDA to their companies, we found that Facebook is doing the same thing.

Below are just a few of corrupt connections we’ve discovered while digging through the list of current and former employees within Facebook.

Facebook’s Head of Cybersecurity Policy—aka, the man who doles out the ban hammer to anyone he wishes—is Nathaniel Gleicher. Before Gleicher was censoring people at Facebook, he prosecuted cybercrime at the U.S. Department of Justice, and served as Director for Cybersecurity Policy at the National Security Council (NSC) in the Obama White House.

Read More: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/facebook-filled-former-government-officials/

Facebook: The Government’s Propaganda Arm?

by Jeff Charles February 09, 2019

The Free Thought Project recently published a report revealing that Facebook has some troubling ties to the federal government and that this connection could be enabling former state officials to influence the content displayed. The social media provider has partnered with various think tanks which receive state funding, while hiring an alarming number of individuals who have held prominent positions in the federal government.

…the fact that most Americans are unaware of this is far worse.

Facebook recently announced their partnership with the Atlantic Council – which is partly funded by tax dollars – to ensure that users are presented with quality news stories. And by “quality,” it seems that they mean “progressive.” The council is well known for promoting far-left news sources, including the Xinhua News Agency, which was founded by the Communist Party of China. Well, that’s reassuring. What red-blooded American capitalist doesn’t want to get the news from a communist regime?

But there one aspect of this story is even more troubling: the government-to-Facebook pipeline. The company has employed a significant number of former officials in positions that grant them influence over what content is allowed on the platform.

Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s Head of Cybersecurity Policy, prosecuted cybercrimes at the Department of Justice under President Obama. Now, he is responsible for determining who gets banned or suspended from the network. But that’s not the worst of it. He also spearheaded the company’s initiative to scrub anti-war content and “protest” movements. In a blog post, Gleicher wrote: “Some of the Pages frequently posted about topics like anti-NATO sentiment, protest movements, and anti-corruption.” He continued, “We are constantly working to detect and stop this type of activity because we don’t want our services to be used to manipulate people.”

The company has also hired others who served in key positions in the Obama administration. Some of these include:

  • Aneesh Raman: Former speechwriter
  • Joel Benenson: Top adviser
  • Meredith Carden: Office of the First Lady

Read More: https://www.libertynation.com/facebook-the-governments-propaganda-arm/

Facebook’s Data Deals Are Under Criminal Investigation

Proof Emerges that Tech Giants are Targeting Specific Speech for Censorship

These tech companies have monopoly status thanks to millions of dollars in lobbying and billions of dollars in federal contracts, as well as protections from legal action thanks to their status as a “public forum.” It is censorship at this point, especially since it’s not equally applied between progressives and conservatives. …I see grounds for lawsuits. 

thumbs down facebook

Facebook Insider Leaks Docs; Explains “Deboosting,” “Troll Report,” & Political Targeting in Video Interview

Read More: https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/02/27/facebook-insider-leaks-docs/?fbclid=IwAR1zNLWeijzU3I8dNKc8vUqyqQgi0jgMxfgLrsr815ExkGECBe4DUZ_ExBY

Platform, or Publisher?

If Big Tech firms want to retain valuable government protections, then they need to get out of the censorship business.

May 7, 2018

While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.” But as Senator Ted Cruz points out, Congress actually has the power to deter political censorship by social media companies without using government coercion or taking action that would violate the First Amendment, in letter or spirit. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate “forum[s] for a true diversity of political discourse.” This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.

Read More: https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html?fbclid=IwAR3INYeDKZMMzP7HFkha2U_0ScSIq4EcfLFakV9vRPlKOUEhtbptl6K4DqE

Examining Fact Check Journalism Through an NPR “Fact-Checking” Article

Kermit Reporter and the Fact Checkers

All Along the Watchtower

…Sure, there are examples of Fact Check Journalism doing good. And then there’s the NPR Fact Check of the 2019 State of the Union Address.

It’s a long read. I recommend it. If you’re like me, you’ll find yourself agreeing with most of the commentary. If you’re not, then maybe you won’t. But whether you agree with the commentary or not isn’t the point. Ignore whether you agreed or disagreed with its sentiments. Read it again and ask yourself: Is this really a fact check? Or is this person trying to shape how I think by presenting his or her opinions as a fact check? As it happens, I think you’ll find that there are actual fact checks in the article, mostly in the well-researched responses to the immigration and border wall questions, other responses to foreign policy and national security questions, and in many of Jim Zarroli’s checks on economic statements.

But with those exceptions, NPR’s Fact Check is an analysis, commentary and opinion piece. There’s nothing wrong with that on its own. That’s an important role of the press. But publishing a piece like this as a ‘fact check’ is not just fiat news. It is fraud, a fraud of the kind that will kill confidence in the media stone dead unless others of influence recognize it and disavow it.

What am I talking about? Let’s take a look.

Read More:
https://www.epsilontheory.com/all-along-the-watchtower/#.XFrcCrxPsdk.twitter

The Gender Pay Gap is a False Narrative to Create Hatred and Disunity Between the Genders

The “gender pay gap” is proven time and again to be caused by choices, but is having and raising children really just a choice for humanity?

Men work longer hours and in more dangerous and physically demanding jobs… and they never have to take time off for Childbearing or child rearing.

Isn’t it a shame that our corporate-owned government’s greed-based policies… (including the Federal Reserve’s year-over-year 2% inflation target) …have forced both genders into the workforce where just decades ago, one decent job could sustain an entire household?

These days prospective working class families have no choice but for both parents to contend in the workforce and leave their children to be raised by foreign workers in daycares or by government agents in public schools (indoctrination camps.)

Both genders have unique gifts, but the greatest gift is to create and shape humanity and that’s something being stolen from women as they’re conditioned to reject femininity, and female roles, and are being raised to act like men and compete with men. Yet studies show that women are unhappier as a group by the decade.

Then our establishment gate keepers tell us that our population is shrinking and we need to import foreign workers to keep our economy afloat. Almost seems like a planned agenda to destroy families and the middle class.

Gender Pay Gap Wage Gap Discrimination Facts

Harvard Researchers Find Women’s Choices Key in Gender Wage Gap

by Charlotte Hays  December 12 2018

IWF has long explained that the gender wage gap is largely caused by the different choices that men and women make.

Now a new study by two Harvard researchers finds exactly that.

The Daily Caller reported Monday:

A pair of Harvard University Ph.D. candidates may have put a dagger in the mythical “gender wage gap” oft cited by politicians and pundits as an issue that can be addressed through governmental policy.

In a paper titled, “Why Do Women Earn Less Than Men?” Valentin Bolotnyy and Natalia Emanuel study the unionized environment of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA).

Economist John Phelan describes the MBTA as a “union shop with uniform hourly wages where men and women adhere to the same rules and receive the same benefits.

Workers are promoted on the basis of seniority rather than performance, and male and female workers of the same seniority have the same choices for scheduling, routes, vacation, and overtime. There is almost no scope here for a sexist boss to favor men over women.”

And yet, Bolotnyy and Emanuel reported that “female workers earn $0.89 on the male-worker dollar (weekly earnings).” The Ph.D. candidates used “confidential administrative data” on the authority’s bus and train operators “to show that the weekly earnings gap can be explained by the workplace choices that women and men make.”

From the abstract:

Women value time away from work and flexibility more than men, taking more unpaid time off using the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and working fewer overtime hours than men.

When overtime hours are scheduled three months in advance, men and women work a similar number of hours; but when those hours are offered at the last minute, men work nearly twice as many. When selecting work schedules, women try to avoid weekend, holiday, and split shifts more than men.

To avoid unfavorable work times, women prioritize their schedules over route safety and select routes with a higher probability of accidents. Women are less likely than men to game the scheduling system by trading off work hours at regular wages for overtime hours at premium wages.

But of course this new study won’t put a dagger into the heart of misperceptions about the gender wage gap.

Read More:

http://iwf.org/blog/2808195/Harvard-Researchers-Find-Women’s-Choices-Key-in-Gender-Wage-Gap

Uber’s Gender Pay Gap Study May Show The Opposite Of What Researchers Were Trying To Prove

Uber has conducted a study of internal pay differentials between men and women, which they describe as “gender blind.” Aired on a podcast by Freakonomics’ Steve Dubner, the researchers (one woman, four men) took great pains to explore whether a pay gap between men and women exists (it does) and how to explain it.

The study found a 7% pay gap in favor of men. They present their findings as proof that there are issues unrelated to gender that impact driver pay. They quantify the reasons for the gap as follows:

Where: 20% is due to where people choose to drive (routes/neighborhoods).

Experience: 30% is due to experience. More experienced Uber drivers make more. N.B. There is a significant gender turnover gap at Uber, over a six-month period, 60% of men quit, 76% of women

Speed: 50% was due to speed, they claim that men drive slightly faster, so complete more trips per hour. N.B. in the study, speed = “distance divided by time on the trip in a given driver-hour.” This measures efficiency, not speed. It could be more dependent on route choice than driving speed, a skill developed through experience, see above.

As always in these sorts of debates, the data can be interpreted in many different ways, partly depending on who is doing the research, and why they are doing it.

The Uber paper was written by five economists—two employed by Uber, two Stanford professors; and the chairman of the University of Chicago economics department, who “moonlights as head of the ubernomics team at Uber.” One of the economists is Jonathan Hall, who leads the public policy and economics team at Uber.

Read More:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/avivahwittenbergcox/2018/09/23/gender-paygap-uber-case-study/#1e1df7e9b555

When it Comes to Russia, Remember Who’s the Aggressor in Their Back Yard

Typical neocons and their media shills…. will back any  group or any method for their regime change goals. 

john mccain Ukraine Neo-Nazi Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok

The Crimean Bridge Bombing Article Shows How Infowars Are Waged

A writer for the Washington Examiner called upon Ukraine to bomb the newly opened Crimean Bridge.

Tom Rogan implored the US’ newest Eastern European ally to hit Russia’s latest infrastructure project with airstrikes in order to render it temporarily unusable in a fantastical operation that he suggests could even receive American military support. While recognizing that Russia would almost certainly retaliate, Rogan believes that the soft power benefits outweigh the hard power costs because of the immense symbolism of Ukraine bombing the bridge, an ultra-extremist position that proves his ideological radicalism.

He’s basically calling for Kiev to commit a terrorist attack against a civilian asset, an egregious crime that could in turn provoke an overwhelming Russian military response that obliterates the attacking party, and all of this just to make a propaganda point against President Putin.

Apart from how strategically counterproductive Rogan’s suggestion is to the same cause of Ukrainian statehood that he purports to uphold, his rant for the Washington Examiner is an abuse of the freedom of speech because it’s being used to rationalize terrorism and preemptively excuse it. Not only that, but the author would certainly be investigated, if not immediately detained and interviewed by, the FBI if he publicly urged anyone to bomb an American bridge.

Just like it usually happens though, the infowar aggressor is now presenting himself as the victim and vice-versa, with Rogan courting sympathy after he was pranked by some famous Russian comedians and had a criminal case opened against him in Moscow.

This is how perception management operations typically work because they oftentimes see a provocateur saying something absolutely absurd in order to prompt a reaction from the targeted party, after which the victimized person or country’s response is then reframed as a hostile and unprovoked attack that feeds into the desired audience’s confirmation bias….

Read More:

The Crimean Bridge Bombing Article Shows How Infowars Are Waged

 

Thought Police Rewrite History in Real-time: Big Brother Would be Proud

The Atlantic Council

Wikipedia Is An Establishment Psyop

Caitlin Johnstone
May 20, 2018

you may have noticed that an awful lot of fuss gets made about Russian propaganda and disinformation these days. Mainstream media outlets are now speaking openly about the need for governments to fight an “information war” against Russia, with headlines containing that peculiar phrase now turning up on an almost daily basis.

Here’s one published today titled “Border guards detain Russian over ‘information war’ on Poland“, about a woman who is to be expelled from that country on the grounds that she “worked to consolidate pro-Russian groups in Poland in order to challenge Polish government policy on historical issues and replace it with a Russian narrative” in order to “destabilize Polish society and politics.”

Here’s one published yesterday titled “Marines get new information warfare leader“, about a US Major General’s appointment to a new leadership position created “to better compete in a 21st century world.”

Here’s one from the day before titled “Here’s how Sweden is preparing for an information war ahead of its general election“, about how the Swedish Security Service and Civil Contingencies Agency are “gearing up their efforts to prevent disinformation during the election campaigns.”

Read More: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/wikipedia-is-an-establishment-psyop-c352c0d2faf

 

No More Dislike Button For You: the Negative Response to the Gillette Ad was Thoughtcrime

This reminds me of when NPR removed their comments sections.

Or when Netflix removed the star rating system because of the backlash against the Amy Schumer “Leather special.”

zuckerburg facebook social media dont think about it

YouTube wants ‘dislike mobs’ to stop weaponizing the dislike button

By 

YouTube is no stranger to viewers weaponizing the dislike button, as seen by the company’s recent Rewind video, but the product development team is working on a way to tackle the issue. Tom Leung, director of project management at YouTube, addressed the issue of “dislike mobs” in a recent issue of Creator Insider, YouTube’s corporate series for creators.

“Dislike mobs” are the YouTube equivalent to review bombings on Steam — a group of people who are upset with a certain creator or game decide to execute an organized attack and downvote or negatively review a game or video into oblivion. It’s an issue on YouTube as well, and one that creators have spoken out against many times in the past. Reports have suggested that a video with a high number of dislikes — that outweighs the number of positive likes — is less likely to be recommended, and could therefore hurt the creator’s channel.

Now, the company is planning to experiment with new ways to make it more difficult for organized attacks to be executed. Leung states in the video above that these are just “lightly being discussed” right now, and if none of the options are the correct approach, they may hold off until a better idea comes along. Right now, the current option is for creators to go into their preferences and indicate they don’t want ratings (likes and dislike numbers) to be visible; the issue is that videos with an overwhelmingly positive response also won’t be seen. Leung and his team are aware of how important those public stats are to creators, too.

“Another [option] is requiring more granularity when someone downvotes,” Leung says. “If you’re going to give a downvote, maybe you have to click a checkbox as to why you don’t like this video. That could give the creator more information, and it would also give viewers pause instead of just doing it impulsively. On the other hand, that’s complicated to build, complicated to collect, and then to relay the results to the creator in analytics or Creator Studio.”

The last option, which Leung describes as the most extreme option, is just to remove dislikes entirely. It’s not “as democratic,” according to Leung as, “not all dislikes are from dislike mobs.”

Read More: https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/1/18207189/youtube-dislike-attack-mob-review-bomb-creator-insider