
YouTube rolls out new tools to help you stop watching - DmenshunlAnlsis
https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/11/youtube-rolls-out-new-tools-to-help-you-stop-watching/
======
tomc1985
By night, YouTube and Facebook secretly take baseball bats to the windshields
of our minds.

By day, YouTube and Facebook sell us glass repair services, at a special price
no less!

YT and FB could fix these social issues overnight, if they wanted to: turn off
autoplay, turn off recommendations, restore chronological timelines, and dial
down the ads. But they won't because that is the core of their business model.

Instead they offer bullshit mind-repair services to fix the damage they
continue to do.

~~~
quotemstr
Any strategy for the betterment of society that depends on for-profit
companies voluntarily forgoing legal ways to earn a profit is doomed to
failure. It's elaborate do-gooder fan fiction. The world does not work that
way.

The world _shouldn 't_ work that way either: if companies stopped providing
the goods and services people needed because a few self-appointed guardians of
the public good scream about it on social media, we'd never have been able to
make progress at all, since these activists have no special power to
distinguish change from regression, and so err toward stasis.

If you want high-engagement features disabled, fine. Propose a law. Let's duke
it out in the process of government. You will lose, badly, because your
position is wildly unpopular with the vast body of the population.

~~~
exergy
What a myopic comment, and dripping with unwarranted vitriol.

The world absolutely _should_ work that way. Companies _should_ have half a
brain to realise that selling bottled water is bad for the environment, that
fracking causes earthquakes, that sugar is the root of all dietary evil, that
tobacco is carcinogenic, that overfishing causes unspeakable damage to ocean
life, that SUVs are colossal wastes of space and fuel...

All the companies doing the above are providing wildly popular goods and
services. And a lot of them are perfectly legal too.

Your suggestion implies that all this is just dandy, thank you very much, so
take your hemp clothing and your vegan sandals and your do-gooderness off of
my property and gtfo acting as a "self appointed guardian".

What kind of extreme libertarian hard-on does a man have to possess to believe
that all of this is how society SHOULD work?

I deeply resent this sentiment that you have to take the good with the bad of
a free market society because there is no alternative. Of course there is!
Regulate these idiots into the ground! While this is clearly a pipe dream,
that's a long way away from the statement that this is how society _should_
be.

~~~
mulmen
I disagree with you at a philosophical level. Companies exist to satisfy
demand and earn a profit. The benefit to our capitalist democratic system is
that the people in power both commercially and politically are beholden to the
demands of the people. We define morality in terms of demand. That can happen
through legislation or through personal accountability. The public brain trust
remains in control, this protects us from the ultimate danger, a well-
intentioned yet myopic autocrat.

~~~
dredmorbius
So long as rent-seeking and externalities exist, "profit" is by no means
aligned with increasing common weal.

~~~
mulmen
I should have been more clear in my original comment. I have no opposition to
regulation and consider it a crucial part of any capitalist system. I disagree
with the idea that companies should be expected to make these moral value
judgements themselves.

~~~
dredmorbius
Gresham's Law details why a regulatory framework, rather than voluntary
action, is required.

That firms are able to dismantle, oppose, co-opt, or avoid such frameworks is
very much part of the problem.

I'd like to see vast changes in liability and increased veil-piercing
abilities.

------
joecool1029
Surprised nobody brought it up when talking about terrible UX. The current
YouTube UI is this shit called polymer. It's terrible, on most systems it
delays loading any text around the player until the player is loaded.
(Especially bad in Firefox/Edge)

This can be disabled by appending disable_polymer=1 to the URL, but it can't
be saved as a cookie or set per account. I have a greasemonkey script to it.

For me it's an annoyance, for my blind friend it means no working screenreader
when polymer is enabled.

~~~
sushid
Really? This certainly can't be a limitation in the language, correct? I find
it hard to believe that Google doesn't have accessibility support for one of
their websites written in their own language.

~~~
cpeterso
YouTube's Polymer UI uses Web Components and Shadow DOM, which are natively
implemented in Chrome but not Firefox or Edge yet. So YouTube serves slow
JavaScript polyfills for JavaScript to non-Chrome browsers.

Firefox and Edge (on my Windows laptop) take about five seconds to replace a
YouTube page's wireframe layout with text. But if I append
"&disable_polymer=1" as joecool1029 recommends above, the text loads instantly
in Firefox and Edge. Is YouTube's new Polymer UI _sooo_ much better that is
worth five second page loads in non-Chrome browsers?

~~~
cpeterso
Correction: I did some more research and YouTube's Polymer UI uses Chrome's
non-standard Shadow DOM v0 API, so even when Firefox and Edge ship the
standard Shadow DOM API (which is in progress), YouTube will still be 5x
slower than in Chrome. :|

------
rconti
Am I the only one who has 0 youtube addiction? I find FB far more compelling,
though I derive quite a bit of value from it.

I watch YouTube to watch a video or two I want to watch. _that 's it_.
Frankly, when someone sends me a video to watch, I resent it, because I hate
spending 5 minutes of my life watching something that probably won't be funny.

Some nights I'll pull up YT on the TV and play a Wendover productions vid, or
an AvE vid, or a car video or two, and that's it. I don't ever feel sucked in
or addicted to it. If anything, I often want to watch something but can't find
anything interesting to watch; nothing sounds that compelling, or I get 3
minutes in and am bored so I try to find something else.

Am I unique in that way? I've also never gotten into video games, they just
don't hold any appeal or hold my attention. That's not to say I haven't spend
12 hours gaming at a LAN party once in a blue moon (actually far less
frequently, maybe 4 or 5 times in my life).. but I don't get sucked in in the
same way I get sucked into other internet distractions. I can go down HN
rabbitholes or keep refreshing FB or some news site hoping to find something
interesting, but YT doesn't do it for me.

~~~
ghba66
I am exactly like you. I hate videos. Videos are a loss of time compared to
text. They are slower, you can’t consume them at your own pace, you can’t go
back easily or read a particular part slowly and then read the rest faster or
skip sections or paragraphs or...

Also I can’t imagine anything lamer than YouTube personalities.

~~~
majewsky
I think it depends on the type of content. I'm totally with you for content
that should be text (e.g. most things related to programming), but some
content lends itself to the video form factor and doesn't work as plaintext
content.

For example, imagine CinemaSins or Movies with Mikey as plaintext. That would
take all of the fun out of it.

Or imagine reading transcripts of Stephen Colbert's monologues. Those would
probably be quite tedious since a lot of Colbert's quality is his pantomimic
object work.

------
ReidZB
Related: as far as I know, there's no way to _permanently_ disable the "Up
Next" autoplay on the desktop site for an account, which drives me crazy every
day pretty much. I _hope_ this new design philosophy will end up with a way to
disable autoplay... but I'm not holding my breath.

~~~
majewsky
My personal solution is to play everything with mpv instead: From YouTube's
SERP, I copy the link to the video and run `mpv "$(xsel -b)"`, which downloads
the video with youtube-dl and plays it in mpv, i.e. in a desktop app. No
bullshit, no autoplay, just plain video and audio. As a bonus, this works with
almost any website containing video, so the player works the same regardless
of website.

~~~
lozf
Yes! Added advantages that it skips ads, and has keyboard control for all
sorts of things that are sometimes useful depending on what you're watching or
listening to: playback speed, A-B loop repeat, adjust brightness / hue, pause,
frame advance, take screenshot etc.

------
chasing
Stop promoting videos that are low-content, mindless listicles, or flat-out
misleading. Or promote stupid behavior. I'm relatively savvy, but every time I
go poking around YouTube it takes a fucking effort to avoid this garbage.

Those videos are designed to be as addicting and empty as eating piles and
piles of candy and YouTube cannot be a mentally healthy place as long as
they're constantly pushed to to forefront.

~~~
Reedx
I rarely see any of that, actually. The key is to be logged in, build up some
history and subscribe to high quality channels. Most of what I see is related
to things I've watched or new content from said channels.

Plus subscribe to Youtube Red, so don't have ads injecting garbage.

~~~
dredmorbius
I don't want to be logged in or spew my personal viewing interests to some
cloud-hosted ads-and-marketing AI's behavioural manipulation engine.

Why not client-based tools that locally retain channel blocklists?

~~~
vatueil
As a website YouTube probably doesn't have much interest in working on client-
based tools, especially not for a niche audience. Though I do wish they would
at least give even logged-in users a way to block channels.

There are browser add-ons that can block channels or certain keywords:

\- Firefox: [https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/video-
blocker/](https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/video-blocker/)

\- Chrome: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/video-
blocker/jknk...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/video-
blocker/jknkjnpcbbgcbdbaampbjlhkcghmgfhk)

~~~
dredmorbius
I was under the impression chanel blocking had been recently added, possibly
not. I've certainly advocated for it.

Absent that, the downside risk for offensive or abysmal content is minimal.
Blocking puts skin in the game.

~~~
vatueil
Parents can block channels in YouTube Kids, but I don't know of a way to block
channels in normal YouTube. The closest I've seen is telling YouTube you're
not interested in recommendations for a certain channel, but I assume that
only prevents videos from that channel showing up on your home page.

Though I usually just use the Video Blocker extension, so perhaps there's
something I'm missed.

~~~
dredmorbius
Huh. I thought I'd run across a mention of channel-blocking and posted it, I
guess not.

Here's my 2015 ask ... in ... emphatic language.

[https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/JF68A2Tx...](https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/JF68A2TxUNu)

------
trendia
Is there any way to create a playlist of videos and then resume playback at
the _same_ point?

For instance, I have about 20 C++ videos I'd like to watch, and each is an
hour long. I rarely have a whole hour, but maybe 20 minutes. I have yet to
figure out how to resume playback where I left off, which would be a very
useful feature!

~~~
dredmorbius
mps-youtube

Killer feature.

[https://github.com/mps-youtube/mps-youtube](https://github.com/mps-
youtube/mps-youtube)

------
wcunning
YouTube did that at the beginning of April by enforcing new content standards
that disallowed content I liked. Deciding to exercise editorial and "parental"
control over the platform is going to kill it for me, and extrapolating from
current trends, probably do so in the next 12 months or less.

------
rbongers
I really hope Google keeps moving in this direction. I think it will be great
for the company's long term reception and I'm excited to apply this to my own
life.

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
Rather than giving people an exit strategy from a predatory and addictive UX,
did it ever occur to Google that they may instead try to improve the UX itself
so that “tools” like this don’t need to be made in the first place?

~~~
ralusek
"Predatory and addictive UX" in this case just refers to the fact that they
have a good algorithm and setup that correctly shows me additional related
content that I actually want to see. This is like getting mad at the
restaurant by your house for having food that is so good that it's making you
fat and poor.

Personal lack of self control is the problem, not good UX. A tool like this is
attempting to assist with the problem, not bring the functionality of the site
to a point that services the shortcomings of the lowest common denominator.

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
Why would you say what I meant by "predatory and addictive" instead of just
asking me what I meant? Your statement is a broad oversimplification of my
point, and this makes your argument intellectually dishonest.

You and I may understand the need to engage in self-control and personal
responsibility for sites like YouTube, but that's because you and I have an
insiders' perspective on the dangers of not doing so.

YouTube has precipitously catered to the lowest common denominator and took
advantage of their mass gullability. It is overwhelmingly obvious that YouTube
designed their site in a way that would get people addicted to the point of
needing a tool like this. The fact that they auto-play videos when they know
the viewer is a child is downright disgusting.

YouTube did this instead of taking a more sophisticated approach of catering
to directors, actors, and producers. YouTube had the chance to elevate the
conversation and make digital media higher-minded, but instead decided to
cater to people making content for the lowest common denominator - stupid,
shlocky trash. The fact that you refer to what YouTube provides as "content"
shows that you are not at all concerned with the way that YouTube has
cheapened our digital media in order to get people hopelessly hooked.

Just because one _can_ do something effective to increase the immediate bottom
line and revenues of their product, doesn't mean they should. I am all about
personal responsibility and I do agree that the blame largely lands on the
individual at the end of the day. But YouTube is obviously preying on these
individuals' largesse and that is just as immoral as being a lazy slob that
watches YouTube all day is. YouTube could have taken a proactive approach and
showed the world how the web could enable much higher quality video, while
limiting your digital footprint. But instead, they did the opposite, which is
why I refuse to publish on their "platform."

~~~
abalos
> It is overwhelmingly obvious that YouTube designed their site in a way that
> would get people addicted to the point of needing a tool like this. The fact
> that they auto-play videos when they know the viewer is a child is downright
> disgusting.

I don't personally see a significant difference here versus something like
cable TV. Do you think this issue carries over into that domain as well?

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
When it comes to childrens' programming, there are similarities, but major
differences, too. Broadcast and cable television is programmed ahead of time,
so parents can know when shows start and end, and it's usually predictable
week-to-week. This, along with interstitial/mid-roll ads, cause the impact of
constant availability and immediate access to be minimized compared to
YouTube.

YouTube makes an effort to construct a unique and never-ending journey, filled
with unpredictable outcomes. This constant "freshness" is something that they
should have been a lot more careful introducing to the public. It not only
makes viewing habits unpredictable, it also adds to the addictive nature of
the platform.

EDIT: I'll also add, that it is not at all flattering to be considered on the
same level as cable television. YouTube has simply taken their awful concepts
and multiplied them to the Nth degree.

------
runevault
First the new tools coming in Android P, now this. Interesting to see how
serious Google appears to be about helping people better understand how they
use their time.

~~~
jacquesm
It's the problem generator that helps you deal with the symptom. Strangest
thing, they could just stop being the problem.

~~~
runevault
Can they do it without someone else simply filling the vacuum left in their
wake? Or do you mean something other than stopping creating things that steal
attention/etc?

~~~
jacquesm
They could just design the system in such a way that it does not push for
overconsumption to begin with. The whole thing is set up the way a drug pusher
can only dream about and then they go and make these token efforts to stop the
addiction.

The same happens here in NL with casinos, only the government is supposed to
run them because they are _so_ concerned for our well being and the potential
for gambling addiction, but I've never seen them refuse someone gambling the
childrens college fund away in a single evening.

------
vinayms
Lately, I am reading about such product features a lot. I wonder if there is
some kind of intelligence about class action suits in the making against tech
sites like YouTube, Facebook etc for being addictive and dangerous to health,
because I can't imagine these companies taking interest in these sort of
things suo moto. Seems they are preempting a future legal hassle.

~~~
HNthrow22
Share a similar cynical view of this, smells like a preemptive CYA move.
Reminds me casinos with the help numbers for gambling addicts posted.

There's been high profile articles shining a light on the predatory design
tactics in tech recently so the awareness of the issue is on the rise. The
idea of a 'design ethicist' while novel seems fundamentally opposed to the
attention-economy.

Overly cynical view is this is google angling to make the case to self-
regulate vs. managing an intrusive regulatory body investigating/fining them
for violations once more people are aware of the current shenanigans.

~~~
eric_h
> Reminds me casinos with the help numbers for gambling addicts posted

At least one of the problem gambling hotlines has an IVR option to redirect
you to a hotel reservation system.

------
Giorgi
Yeah, well they are not earning any money after the ad is played so might as
well suggest to stop playing.

------
twothamendment
Potato chip company: "We tired to make you stop eating them." Customer: "Sell
me more, I don't care if I'm fat." Potato chip company: "OK, but make sure you
read the nutrition panel on the back." (Hey guys, increase production, we have
them hooked now!)

As long as auto play lives on, they show they have no interest in helping
anyone watch less - and why should they pretend they care?

------
Aardwolf
> You set Wind Down when you’d like to go to bed, and Android P will shift
> into a gray-scale palette

Oh they should really make this red-scale (red on black, no white light), not
grey-scale, red is the only color that does not disturb night vision, and grey
contains blue so disturbs sleep.

------
Semirhage
_While these changes to YouTube are opt-in, it’s an interesting – and arguably
responsible – position to take in terms of helping people manage their
sometimes addictive behaviors around technology._

It would be easier to make that argument if they weren’t opt-in, and layered
on top of an attention-monetizing economy.

------
artur_makly
youtube kids should have better addiction and content controls

------
sokoloff
I find it amusing that one of the choices is 180 minutes.

Yes, please remind me every _three HOURS_ of non-stop videos that I watch that
it might be time to take a break...but don't offer me a choice of every two
hours.

------
montrose
Noprocrast comes to YouTube!

------
sodosopa
They added Logan Paul to every video didn't they?

------
pathseeker
It's like a cigarette company offering a gum you chew that reduces your
smoking from a pack a day to half a pack a day. Whoopee!

------
bahmboo
I wonder if this phenomenon is age related. I chose not to regulate my game
playing hours to something "healthy" in my teens and my early twenties. As I
aged it wasn't an issue. I guess this is a thing now? How about you've been
working 10 hours time to take a break? You've been married 20 years time to
move on? Somewhat facetious but I was genuinely surprised they actually built
these tools because that implies it's not a trivial issue in the population.

------
hungerstrike
I don't need a babysitter to tell me when to stop doing things, but I'd love
to be able to login to YouTube without having to be logged into the rest of
Google.

That's one reason I think Twitch is killing YouTube in live-streaming: Like
Reddit, I'm able to create a new Twitch account without having it affect the
rest of my life online and I can be completely anonymous - they don't ask for
a phone number or anything.

------
balls187
Youtube, start by killing all content aimed at little kids.

------
watwut
My issue with youtube is not that I cant stop watching. I have two issues:

1.) I watched one historical nazi movie due to attempt to learn. Why is it
suggestig so many "holocaust did not happened" pieces and genuine white
supremacist bs? Real story.

2.) I started with metal search. Why is it reversion g to pop so fast? I want
metal. Definitely not Peppa the Pig. Wtf, I started with metal, not Peppa.

------
mrguyorama
Interesting that google now has a "design ethicist", but in my opinion, the
fact that he's not allowed to shut down the company means he has already
failed

~~~
dyarosla
Is your remark witty? Sure. Does it add to the conversation? Not so much.

~~~
Semirhage
As a baseline it adds more than yours, right? He is for example, using humor
to make the point that a toothless gesture doesn’t address the core issue. By
contrast you’re just being pissy and reactive.

~~~
dyarosla
(removed)

~~~
Semirhage
If only you had said _that_ instead of the single line, Reddit-like bit of
venom you actually wrote!

