Not My Tube March 3, 2014 12:23 AM   Subscribe

Youtube is Google and coercive. I just tried to simply 'Like' that husky/head-scratch video, and was told I had to log-in. I loged-out permanently several months ago when I couldn't comment without logging in. Deleted all my content, too.

Maybe no one cares, but it sure would be nice if Metafilter would stop doing so much free advertising for Google, via Youtube posts.

I just had to bitch a bit. Someone stuck an 'H' in my ADD and now I'm 30% more bitchy. (seems to go with being 20% less heavy, but cause/effect is unclear)
posted by Goofyy to MetaFilter-Related at 12:23 AM (130 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

what
posted by modernnomad at 12:40 AM on March 3, 2014 [37 favorites]


There is no site that lets you "like" stuff without logging in.

Except really "like" is only facebook - I think you really were trying to thumbs it up ... thumbs up it? thumb up it... Whatever!
posted by aubilenon at 12:43 AM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


Yes, Vimeo, for example, also requires logging in to "♥" something, and I'm not sure what video hosting sites, if any, do not... but, yeah, Google is particularly coercive, and I don't blame you for being cranky about that.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:48 AM on March 3, 2014 [5 favorites]


So you are annoyed that a website won't let you add content without providing credentials?
posted by Mitheral at 1:09 AM on March 3, 2014 [15 favorites]


This is an excellent use of Metatalk. I commend you.

I dread to think how bad You Tube comments would be if you didn't have to log in to contribute.
posted by MuffinMan at 1:14 AM on March 3, 2014 [6 favorites]


Rather than 'like' something, just save it to your hard drive (I assume the purpose is for future re-watching, not recommending). There are many easy ways ... I use the 'ss' method.
posted by mannequito at 1:41 AM on March 3, 2014


I don't mind about logging into Youtube to comment or like, but requiring me create a goddamn Google+ account to do it? No thanks. If I really like something on Youtube, I sometimes find the person who made it on Twitter and send them an encouraging message.

That said, asking MeFi to avoid linking to Youtube is... asking a bit much, to put it mildly.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 2:02 AM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


I am so old I remember the days when no sane post-pubescent individual would ever think about reading YouTube comments, much less "liking" YouTube videos and actually creating comments.

We've come a long way, baby.
posted by KokuRyu at 2:04 AM on March 3, 2014 [5 favorites]


Is it 2006 again?
posted by empath at 2:38 AM on March 3, 2014 [2 favorites]


You couldn't like a Youtube video with logging in. So. How is this MeFi's problem, exactly?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 2:57 AM on March 3, 2014 [20 favorites]


We can tell it's not your tube because it isn't called GoofyTube. Don't want to log in to Google properties? Then don't. It's easy. In exchange for some degree of anonymity, you don't get to like things or comment on them on those sites.

The idea that Mefi linking to Google-owned content is in some way "free advertising for Google" is ridiculous.
posted by DarlingBri at 3:00 AM on March 3, 2014 [8 favorites]


If anything, posting YT videos on MeFi is good because you can comment on/favourite the MeFi post/comment without having to log into YT.

More importantly, people should stop with the stupid redundant "SLYT" labels. They are meaningless, to newbies who don't know the initialism, and even to people who do - I mean what does the S stand for again?
posted by EndsOfInvention at 3:07 AM on March 3, 2014 [5 favorites]


single
posted by pyramid termite at 3:09 AM on March 3, 2014 [6 favorites]


aubilenon: There is no site that lets you "like" stuff without logging in.

AV Club lets you upvote without being logged in. I remember coming across it elsewhere but can't remember any off the top of my head. I suppose it could be argued that like/dislike and upvote/downvote are fundamentally different, but I don't see how it would be the case in terms of whether people have to be logged in.

And yes, until Google Plus I really liked and respected Google, now their business model seems to be: "Let's go out of our way to annoy everyone." Using Google is like having a coworker who just got religion and now keeps turning every conversation you have to the subject of your eternal soul burning in hell forevermore if you don't join Google Plus.
posted by Kattullus at 3:09 AM on March 3, 2014 [5 favorites]


BEST OF TEH WEB
posted by DoctorFedora at 3:10 AM on March 3, 2014 [2 favorites]


Ironically it was Google Now on my phone who just alerted me to this post, saying there's a 'new update to website you recently visited'. Then I wanted to 'add to favorites' you but Metafilter wouldn't let me do that without logging in, which is surely outrageous, so I guess now I'll have to make a post titled Not My Filter on G+ to make them stop pushing Metafilter down my throat.
posted by procrastinator at 3:37 AM on March 3, 2014 [18 favorites]


But...but...if people stop linking to YouTube how else am I going to see quality clips of dogs getting their heads scratched??? :(
posted by billiebee at 3:57 AM on March 3, 2014 [4 favorites]


So, you're saying that you don't like that? So, maybe don't 'like' that.
posted by pompomtom at 3:57 AM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


We believe that any meta based on a complaint that involves a post that includes a Husky should be nuked from space.
posted by HuronBob at 4:19 AM on March 3, 2014 [8 favorites]


I don't get it.

You want everyone to stop posting Youtube links because you can't comment on a video unless you log in? And you are somehow insulted that you have to log in? And this is Metafilter's fault?
posted by timsteil at 4:25 AM on March 3, 2014 [14 favorites]


I think the world will keep on spinning despite the fact that you didn't get to "Like" the husky/head scratch video.

No one is advertising for Google. People use YouTube because it is easy. When it becomes not easy and there's a viable alternative, people won't use it anymore.
posted by inturnaround at 5:10 AM on March 3, 2014


Is it 2006 again?

"...there are twice as many posts with the flickr tag vs. the youtube tag..."

The past is a foreign country.
posted by griphus at 5:11 AM on March 3, 2014 [6 favorites]


I loged-out permanently several months ago [..] Deleted all my content, too.

And now they're tempting you back with cute dog videos. You must log in or you're not allowed to like huskies!

Man, that is evil.
posted by ryanrs at 5:14 AM on March 3, 2014 [2 favorites]


I think it's totally reasonable to complain about Youtube. A lot of them are reposts from wimp.com or reddit, whether folks know it or not. (The Husky was posted to wimp four days ago, and to Reddit three days ago, despite the fact the video is from last May.)

I mean, that's basically how virality works, and while it's fine that we participate in that process, it's also fine to acknowledge that we're funneling traffic to Youtube. That's what Youtube was built for! Yet if the poster had linked to wimp rather than Youtube, they could have both a. credited the actual source, and b. avoided giving Google any of our data about views and ip addresses and likes and et cetera. (sic)

On the other hand, who the fuck cares? Leviathan gonna leviathan, resistance is futile, he loved Big Brother, all that... you know?
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:29 AM on March 3, 2014 [3 favorites]


Yet if the poster had linked to wimp rather than Youtube, they could have both a. credited the actual source...

Wait, how is a site that (speculatively) first re-posted this video without any sort of credit to the creator of the video more legit than linking to the YouTube account of the actual person whose dog it is and who took the video and uploaded it?
posted by griphus at 5:37 AM on March 3, 2014 [32 favorites]


Sorry, it looks like they link back to the YouTube site so "with the bare minimum of credit."
posted by griphus at 5:39 AM on March 3, 2014


Yes, we do have to log in to Metafilter to comment/favorite... but we are not required to do so using our actual meatspace names. So maybe let's back off on the false equivalence.

I am on Goofyy's side here. I just discovered that my old YT account, which was associated with an internet handle, is apparently inaccessible and if I wanted to, let's say, add a video to my list of favorites, I have to do it with my Google id. No thanks. The lack of a sufficiently robust and popular alternative is a problem bigger than Metafilter can solve, however.
posted by trunk muffins at 5:39 AM on March 3, 2014 [2 favorites]


required to do so using our actual meatspace names

My Google+ name is that of a character from Water Margin whose nickname means "Stinking Dickhead."

Then again, my name on various Meffy offshoots sounds like "Big Asshole," so what's my point?

Maybe what I mean to say is that sometimes we can observe a remarkably close relationship between Big Asshole and Stinking Dickhead. Probably not on YouTube, though.

There are other sites for that sort of thing.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 6:07 AM on March 3, 2014


Yet if the poster had linked to wimp rather than Youtube, they could have both a. credited the actual source

I don't think "actual source" is an accurate term for wimp's role here. But if it is considered important to give credit to wimp for finding this video and drawing their audience's attention to it, then I thought the expected thing was to link the original source of the material (here, the youtube video, I assume) and to add a "via" link to wimp.
posted by stebulus at 6:21 AM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


My browser has this cool new "bookmark" function. If I want to be able to find something again, I can add a "bookmark" and it "saves" the "url" for me to use later. And they seem to not require me to log into anything except my computer.
posted by hydropsyche at 6:34 AM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


On the other hand, who the fuck cares? Leviathan gonna leviathan, resistance is futile, he loved Big Brother, all that... you know?

Someone's got a case of the Mondays!
posted by octobersurprise at 6:37 AM on March 3, 2014 [4 favorites]


(I apologize for the level of snark there. A student, who is constantly complaining about how hard my class is and how mean I am, today arrived 40 minutes late to a 50 minute class. I'm not allowed to snark at her, so I snark at Metatalk.)
posted by hydropsyche at 6:37 AM on March 3, 2014 [9 favorites]


I too would like more husky/head scratch videos, please.
posted by scalefree at 6:40 AM on March 3, 2014


The REAL problem here is that MeFi is just an insidious corporate shill for the internet. This site is always trying to cram internet-related stuff down the mouths of innocent children who don't know any better. Well I say: enough is enough. Vote #1 quidnunc kid and I promise MeFi will become 100% internet-free. No longer will we be forced to learn about new things, communicate with people in far-off lands, or purchase goods and services via the so-called "internet". Instead, we will plug our erogenous prehensile tails into the underground network serviced by the Tree of Souls (near the mysterious Flux Vortex) and thus transfer our human minds into our new Avatar bodies, and then we'll be 12-foot tall and blue, and-hang on I've got a phone call. Hello? Oh Hi ... what? Oh ... OK, sorry. Thanks. Yup. OK. No, I'll tell them. Yeah. OK, bye. Sorry guys that was 2009 calling, and they told me they want their ridiculous sci-fi horseshit back. Sorry everyone. Sorry.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 6:42 AM on March 3, 2014 [51 favorites]


i hope that the original sources, where content creators are the most likely to see a return, keep getting posted. right now, that place is youtube. it seems really bizarre to me to suggest that wimp or reddit deserve more credit than the original creator.
posted by nadawi at 6:48 AM on March 3, 2014 [12 favorites]


At least I can watch YouTube videos without logging in.

NYT articles, though - I can't even read them without either logging in or using some kind of workaround. How about some noise about that?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:51 AM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


It could be worse, you could have to pay $5 AND set up an account to comment.

I mean...WTF dude?
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 6:55 AM on March 3, 2014 [5 favorites]


NYT articles, though - I can't even read them without either logging in or using some kind of workaround. How about some noise about that?

The Old Gray Lady is always watching. ALWAYS WATCHING.
posted by Atreides at 6:56 AM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


Ice Cream Socialist: " My Google+ name is that of a character from Water Margin whose nickname means "Stinking Dickhead.""

I have three G+ accounts and only one of them has my real name attached to it. But Google+ does in fact have a Naming policy that requires users to identify themselves by their first and last real names. If your name doesn't match standard convention, they ask you to go through an appeal process.

You don't need to follow their naming policy rules. But if you're caught violating it, they will treat it as any other TOS violation and block your account. A risk.


To the OP: Every once in a while, I make large MLYT video posts. I don't share your concerns, so I'm not going to stop doing so. Sorry. But I try to be fairly diligent about tagging them with "MLYT." So feel free to identify and skip 'em that way.
posted by zarq at 6:59 AM on March 3, 2014 [3 favorites]


I think I can understand the frustration. Youtube became significantly more hostile and less usable to me when they integrated their commenting system with Google Plus back in November. Before that, I was able to remain logged in to just Youtube without being logged in to all of Google by logging in and then deleting all Google cookies except for those on youtube.com. (I prefer not to be logged into any Google services, particularly when searching. It's probably futile and pointless, but I'll take any opportunity I can to foul up their profiling of me.) That trick still works in that I appear as logged-in on Youtube but not on Google, but since the comments module is now implemented as an iframe from a google.com origin, it means that I'm not logged on for the purposes of commenting or thumbs-upping/downing comments. It's not like I have any desire to add to the pit of human misery that is the Youtube comment section, but I miss being able to at least thumbs-down obvious idiots and trolls.
posted by Rhomboid at 7:05 AM on March 3, 2014


There's lots of media/newspaper sites that allow you to like/upvote a comment; but you have to log in to tick the down arrow.

People link to videos ('CONTENT'); many of these happen to be on youtube. You should monitor all the youtube threads and go and find alternative carriers of the video and post links to those sites early in the threads to stop the borg getting so much boosting.

Now if we wanna talk gReader loss and the slimey forcing of people into G+ usage, then I'll be on the barricades with you comrade.
posted by peacay at 7:07 AM on March 3, 2014 [3 favorites]


I for one welcome our ridiculous sci-fi horseshit overlords.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:43 AM on March 3, 2014 [6 favorites]


erogenous prehensile tails

Band name or new sockpuppet?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:10 AM on March 3, 2014 [3 favorites]


Wildest dream come true.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 8:12 AM on March 3, 2014 [4 favorites]


Can I complain about sites that make you answer stupid personal questions in the guise of added security here?
posted by jeffamaphone at 8:42 AM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


Considering how much Google already knows about me, I'd like to be able to use their search engine as a personal memory resource.

"What are my kids' social security numbers?"
"Where did my daughter leave her #£¶ª^%$º@! security blanket?"
"What is my blood type?"

Etc., etc.
posted by zarq at 8:49 AM on March 3, 2014 [12 favorites]


anotherpanacea: I think it's totally reasonable to complain about Youtube. A lot of them are reposts from wimp.com or reddit, whether folks know it or not. (The Husky was posted to wimp four days ago, and to Reddit three days ago, despite the fact the video is from last May.)

See this previous discussion of "via reddit" credits. (Summary: not everything viral that is seen on reddit then on MetaFilter can actually be directly tied to reddit)

And I'll echo that Wimp is a terrible thing to link to because 1) they are Ebaums World-like content thieves, and 2) there's no fancy inline viewer for Wimp-(re)hosted videos, like there are for YouTube and Vimeo.


zarq: Considering how much Google already knows about me, I'd like to be able to use their search engine as a personal memory resource.

I actually treat my Gmail account this way. I have copies of documents that have bits of personal information about me and my family, and I have searched through old emails to find those documents for specific information.

If you've ever sent a Word document or a PDF that was saved as text (instead of a flat image), you can search your mail for these bits of information. Well, at least 2 out of your 3 questions. (Answer to question #2: DTMFB [dump that something something blankie])
posted by filthy light thief at 9:01 AM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


Considering how much Google already knows about me, I'd like to be able to use their search engine as a personal memory resource.

I send emails to myself with stuff like my husband's SSN so I can just search for it easily wherever I am as long as I have my phone. Probably a bad idea but apparently I've decided it's a worth-it balance of convenience over security.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 9:02 AM on March 3, 2014 [3 favorites]


Mrs. Pterodactyl: Probably a bad idea but apparently I've decided it's a worth-it balance of convenience over security.

Don't forget there are also things that you've sent to others, and people have sent to you. If you want to really "clean" your email for sensitive documents, you'll have to scour all your categories and sent mail, too.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:04 AM on March 3, 2014


I am on Goofyy's side here. I just discovered that my old YT account, which was associated with an internet handle, is apparently inaccessible and if I wanted to, let's say, add a video to my list of favorites, I have to do it with my Google id.

....can't you favorite it here on Metafilter instead?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:10 AM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


Now if we wanna talk gReader loss and the slimey forcing of people into G+ usage, then I'll be on the barricades with you comrade.

Both are ramrodded into your life because of YouTube - it's an essential internet service that's all but a monopoly (in terms of market share), and Google uses it to force you into using their G+ "service" - which would be fine, but it's a service designed to strip away online privacy. You can't even keep your public and private personas firewalled - they quash pseudonyms whenever they can.

More, because they have the big stick and the new vision of how to use it on a captive userbase, they feel free to strip away essential community-oriented services like Groups and Reader to show-horn them into the G+ panopticon.

It needs to be talked about and addressed - and in the future, I will be checking to see if a video is available on Vimeo before posting a YouTube vid. Google has far too much power over internet users. (Facebook, too, but that's not much of an issue, here.)
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:11 AM on March 3, 2014 [3 favorites]


filthy light thief: " I actually treat my Gmail account this way. I have copies of documents that have bits of personal information about me and my family, and I have searched through old emails to find those documents for specific information."

Mrs. Pterodactyl: " I send emails to myself with stuff like my husband's SSN so I can just search for it easily wherever I am as long as I have my phone. Probably a bad idea but apparently I've decided it's a worth-it balance of convenience over security."

Oh, I totally do this already, too. I actually have a google document with some of my kids' most basic info archived, like their SS#'s, blood types, allergies, etc., because I KNOW that the few times I've been with one of them in the ER I've been too mentally discombobulated and incoherent to remember that stuff.

As you say, convenience over security.
posted by zarq at 9:15 AM on March 3, 2014


Slap*Happy: "and in the future, I will be checking to see if a video is available on Vimeo before posting a YouTube vid."

If I might make a suggestion, consider also searching DailyMotion and Veoh, too. I've used both as supplemental sources when composing posts and no one has complained about geographic restrictions.
posted by zarq at 9:17 AM on March 3, 2014 [6 favorites]


Can I complain about sites that make you answer stupid personal questions in the guise of added security here?

I got one the other day that asked me
What is the name of your favorite pet?
Now I have to choose?
posted by zamboni at 9:29 AM on March 3, 2014 [5 favorites]


I like jam
posted by edgeways at 9:37 AM on March 3, 2014


Ironically it was Google Now on my phone who just alerted me to this post, saying there's a 'new update to website you recently visited'.

Weird. My phone's Google Now has never acknowledged my regular Metafilter visits. Even though it took instant notice of my recent research on St. Louis Blues (an old musical) and now serves me notifications whenever the St. Louis Blues (a hockey team) score a goal.
posted by Iridic at 10:17 AM on March 3, 2014 [2 favorites]


Now I have to choose?

How are they going to know which pet to take hostage otherwise?
posted by ambrosen at 10:21 AM on March 3, 2014 [3 favorites]


I agree that Google has made Youtube *incredibly* obnoxious.

They tried so repeatedly to make me use my "real name" that I ended up with an account named "fuckyounsa." And somehow it's glommed onto pictures from my Gmail account that I never gave it permission to.

And you are now required to have a Google+ account to comment which, no. Even the co-founder of Youtube openly mocked that one.

Nevertheless, I don't think people are going to stop posting Youtube videos until people start posting funny/interesting videos somewhere else.
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:28 AM on March 3, 2014


Google Now has some threshold for number of new links, and won't show a site if it's too noisy. Is pretty much the same reason I removed mefi from my RSS reader. The answer to the question " are there new links?" is invariably yes. Metatalk has much less frequent updates.
posted by zabuni at 10:29 AM on March 3, 2014


Lots of comments that actually don't reflect what was read. Oh well.
And yes, in the past, I could always click a thumbs-up without logging in. They stopped accepting comments without the Google+ log-in long before requiring it to click the thumbs.

I never asked Youtube posts to stop. Didn't even take my post entirely serious other than the need to gripe about it. But hey, at least I got my fill of youtube-type comments, reading this page.
posted by Goofyy at 10:36 AM on March 3, 2014


You say:

"I never asked Youtube posts to stop."

You wrote:

"Maybe no one cares, but it sure would be nice if Metafilter would stop doing so much free advertising for Google, via Youtube posts. "


If you're going to come here and make a MeTa thread about this, at least be frank about what you said, because, you know, we can read it, right up there. Don't dance around it. Own it.
posted by kbanas at 10:41 AM on March 3, 2014


I think what Goofyy is saying is that "stop doing so much" ≠ "stop altogether".
posted by zarq at 10:42 AM on March 3, 2014 [2 favorites]


this post probably should have been deleted since metafilter can't really do anything about your frustration about not being able to click a thumbs up on another page especially since you're now saying that you weren't looking for metafilter to do anything, you were just venting, and you weren't being serious really.
posted by nadawi at 10:43 AM on March 3, 2014 [13 favorites]


This reminded me to try and delete my Google+ account that I signed up for in a fit of thinking I shouldn’t be so hard to find, for business purposes. Apparently I have 2 accounts (?) but when I sign in they both say "upgrade to Google+". Uh, OK. Maybe I deleted them already, I’m not really sure. But once I signed out of both it went to a screen that said "which account would you like to sign into" where as a few minutes earlier they didn’t seem to be connected. Ugh.

I really don’t like Google, and don’t use anything except for YouTube anymore. They’re…difficult.
posted by bongo_x at 10:45 AM on March 3, 2014


Seconding nadawi. This isn't really about MeFi.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 10:51 AM on March 3, 2014


Lots of comments that actually don't reflect what was read. Oh well.

Wait. You can't write a barely intelligible personal gripe and then be annoyed when people don't read it closely. That's just goofy.
posted by octobersurprise at 10:57 AM on March 3, 2014 [3 favorites]


And it isn't very gallant, either.
posted by octobersurprise at 10:59 AM on March 3, 2014 [4 favorites]


If we're just complaining about how YouTube videos are presented around here:

I've noticed that a lot of video links lately have been going to WIMP-like random blogs with the YouTube video embedded and not much additional content beyond a quick "here's a video of x" blurb. There ought to be a law. (Or perhaps a guideline.)

I'd just prefer a link to the video on YouTube itself rather than some random third party ad leech. This would have the added benefit of having that video actually show up as a double when somebody goes to repost it.

(All that said, I'm not too concerned about the "OH NOES CONTENT THIEVES" aspect of WIMP et al., because, let's face it, what they do isn't too far from what MetaFilter does.)
posted by Sys Rq at 11:00 AM on March 3, 2014 [3 favorites]


Kirth Gerson: "I can't even read them without either logging in or using some kind of workaround. How about some noise about that?"

I've railed against this a lot; it's only a difference of degree between them and say JSTOR.

Slap*Happy: "oth are ramrodded into your life because of YouTube - it's an essential internet service that's all but a monopoly (in terms of market share), and Google uses it to force you into using their G+ "service" - which would be fine, but it's a service designed to strip away online privacy."

If people would stop being such consumers and go back to hosting their own stuff this wouldn't be a problem.
posted by Mitheral at 11:03 AM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


You can't favorite or comment on a post on Metafilter without logging in either. I dont get it.

To do those things on Metafilter, you need a Metafilter account. To do those things on YouTube, you need a Google account. If you don't want a Google account, I don't see how it affects your participation on Metafilter if you don't comment/like videos on YouTube. You can still join in the Metafilter conversation about them and favorite the Metafilter post, which is... what you do on Metafilter.
posted by wildcrdj at 11:13 AM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


I knew that I'd never keep a g+ account when I first tried it out, and they automatically started including my personal pictures from picassa in web searches under my name as part of their big integration effort, and I did not recall giving them permission (maybe it was opt out or something, but the fact that I had to try and figured out how the sign-up process could allow me to miss a privacy issue this big was also concerning to me.). After some investigative effort, it was likely a personalized search result that was directed to my eyes only when I was logged in, but it took some work to confirm that this was probably the case. In any case, it was so obfuscated how my personal information was being used that it made it pretty clear to me that Google did not have their act together in a way that made me remotely comfortable having them use my personal data, and I was done at that point. Going too quickly too fast without enough care for the user's privacy concerns. Have they resolved this? I don't care anymore, really.

I feel pretty conflicted, as I like a lot of what Google does and offers. But boy does that kind of forced integration/personalization that puts their integration needs over concerns for immediate (and in my eyes, very obviously valued) customer privacy concerns rankles me to no end.
posted by SpacemanStix at 11:13 AM on March 3, 2014 [7 favorites]


If people would stop being such consumers and go back to hosting their own stuff this wouldn't be a problem.

Meh. The server-side folks are too busy tripping over each other to "disrupt" the field with yet-another-service.

There's probably a pretty good business case for a push-button "online presence in a box" - pointy-swipy granma-friendly vagrant clone that will install and update a facebook-alike service that's all your own, controlled from either the web or a local app where you can invite people you know to link their own online-presence to. VPS's are getting really damn cheap these days. Put some of this new-school server automation stuff to good use.
posted by Slap*Happy at 11:24 AM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


I never comment on youtube, but what really chaps my hide is when they require me to log in to see a video with extra gore/sexiness/whatever. I have an very old google account, which I deliberately deleted as much info from as I can, because of privacy concerns.

Anyway, it's clear that they track all my net surfing anyway. Jerks.
posted by annsunny at 11:30 AM on March 3, 2014


I don't get anti-google argument.

Company gives people:
Free email account with nice interface and virtually unlimited storage
Free picture hosting with nice interface and massive storage
Free video hosting that even pays money back to people who post content
Free map service in which they undertook the endeavor to photograph the whole road system to make it better for you
Free productivity suite to compete with Microsoft (the old EvilEmpire) and allow collaborative online doc sharing
Free cloud storage
Free alternative to Facebook
Free fiberoptic internet service to certain cities
And countless other things.

But they want to run a few ads to pay for all that? Fuck those greedy corporate fat cats. They want you to at least sign in to their service so they can understand how people use their services and permit cross-functionality across their services? Screw them NSA lapdogs.

I get it if you are privacy fanatic. There are plenty of places that can give you that privacy, and usually for a price.

But to dog the company that provides so many nice services for free because you don't like the little bit of costless information they ask in return? That seems odd to me. Choose not to use it, ok. But the evil empire criticism seems misplaced for a company that doesn't charge any money for any of their excellent services.
posted by dios at 11:56 AM on March 3, 2014 [11 favorites]


Some of the piling on in these kind of threads is over the top.
posted by 0 answers at 11:59 AM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


There is no site that lets you "like" stuff without logging in.

Urban Dictionary does. There are a few others.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 12:03 PM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


1) they are Ebaums World-like content thieves, and 2) there's no fancy inline viewer for Wimp-(re)hosted videos, like there are for YouTube and Vimeo.

What does this even mean? You realize that to the extent that Wimp's inline viewer is "content theft," our inline viewer is content theft? I don't even think either one is content-theft, but at least put a period between your two points so you're not performatively contradicting yourself in the same sentence!
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:05 PM on March 3, 2014


I thought piling-on was the whole point of these kind of threads.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:06 PM on March 3, 2014


You realize that to the extent that Wimp's inline viewer is "content theft," our inline viewer is content theft?

Except, at least in my experience, Wimp takes the video and puts it in their own player, so you can't just (for example) click the "view in youtube" link to bring you to the original video. Then they don't link directly to the original videos, but instead at best link to the user account that uploaded the video.

They're better than Ebaums World, but not by much.
posted by inigo2 at 12:13 PM on March 3, 2014 [2 favorites]


This really is an odder pileon thread than most. How we got from "Advertising company G has gotten progressively suckier to deal with lately so let's not deal with them so much" to wherever it is we are now is a bit of a mystery really.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 12:14 PM on March 3, 2014


Free-association bitching?
posted by annsunny at 12:19 PM on March 3, 2014


But they want to run a few ads to pay for all that?

I don't care about the ads. Those are OK, and even useful!

What I do care about is the relentless insistence that everyone I email can see my all of my photos, and know which videos I've favorited or commented upon, and even know what I've bought recently.

Google doesn't care that I want to keep my personal and professional life separate. It demands that I don't. Google doesn't care if I want to share a saucy video with my wife but not my mom. It requires endless amounts of re-configuration of privacy and associations on their (frankly, quite terrible) social media service. This configuration will be undone at unannounced intervals for whatever reasons they wish, usually to try to trade on your reputation to sell product. (Google Endoresements, anyone?)

I get Google needs to sell ads to make money, and they're going to use search algorithms to find the best ads to show me (from their customer's perspective, rather than mine, but I'm OK with that, too.) I'm not angry about that or a privacy fanatic, I understand the anonymous nature of it. And they make shedloads of money from it! I'm OK with that too, and happy - as this money was going to pay for the services I was enjoying. I don't owe them an ounce of gratitude, they more than made their money back from my use of their services.

They do need to worry about how I feel about their services, as I will be leaving the googlesphere when a decent Mozilla, Jolla or Ubuntu phone makes its way to the US market. I'm already on Cyanogen, and even that's not far enough away. I'm not an early adopter type, I'm a "pick a platform and ride it for a decade or so" type. Google is done. I can't use it anymore and feel safe.

I just don't like feeling spied upon and my personal thoughts and moments shared openly to those I don't want to, without being asked by either of us. (As has happened more than once.)

We're rapidly running to a point where the convenience and features of Google's services are not worth the hassle and potential humiliation, and we must acknowledge that they are hell-bent on killing their billion dollar goose for some ill-conceived Facebook-alike no-one would be using if they weren't strong-armed into it by Google's near monopoly and entrenched userbase.

I'm certainly glad you have nothing to hide, citizen.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:32 PM on March 3, 2014 [20 favorites]


Metafilter: first they came for my cat videos, and I said nothing.
posted by killdevil at 12:38 PM on March 3, 2014


I do share the OP's annoyance with YouTube/Google. I had to set a fucking AdBlock rule to stop YouTube from intrusively prompting me to Log In With My Real Name! every time I tried to watch a video.

Google has a serious social inferiority complex. First they got their ass handed to them by Facebook, then Facebook itself was abandoned by the hip young beautiful people in favor of half a dozen narrower, cooler, less creepy competitors. Where does that leave Google? Well, it leaves them trying to force Google+ down our gullets at every opportunity.
posted by killdevil at 12:45 PM on March 3, 2014 [5 favorites]


Something happened overnight a couple of days ago to whatever script chains all the web together (I'm looking at you, Goog, cos you make me wait while you log in to YouTube just so I can check Gmail) and the Tumblr bookmarklet stopped working.

It had been working just fine when I went bed (which probably when Mountain View was having lunch) and the next morning, poof, just refused to budge.

Only when NoScript was turned off (whimper) did it work again and then the whole web dragged me down as every ball and chain wrapped itself around my ankles leaving me to try and surf in blorping muddy quicksand.

I quickly gave up the idea of no NoScript and found a "good enough though not perfect" substitute for Tumblr blogging.

There are gremlins and sneetches afoot at night on these webs we crawl, children.
posted by infini at 12:51 PM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


Another reason to be cranky about YouTube: Why YouTube’s Automated Copyright Takedown System Hurts Artists
posted by homunculus at 12:55 PM on March 3, 2014 [3 favorites]


I thought piling-on was the whole point of these kind of threads.
posted by octobersurprise


I thought the point is to discuss whatever concern the poster has in effort to come to a resolution. It seems a lot of them tend to become a race for who can tell the poster they don't have a point to make, without stopping to consider if... they actually do. Extra points go to those who show personal offence that the poster has the temerity to open a thread on the grey to begin with. I mean, this one was wrapped in chat-filter sure, but judging by the limited discussion it opened up, it is a valid concern.
posted by 0 answers at 1:15 PM on March 3, 2014 [2 favorites]


But they want to run a few ads to pay for all that?

You are literally the first person in this thread to bring up Google's ads.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:23 PM on March 3, 2014 [4 favorites]


Who doesn't run Adblock Plus did you say?

though they've been sneaking them in under the radar, and just today I saw one horrible one in Yahoo mail that snuck in over night. hmm... I wonder if text ads are new periscopes?
posted by infini at 1:46 PM on March 3, 2014


DevilsAdvocate: Sorry about that. I guess I misunderstood the original post's reference to "free advertising for Google." I somehow processed that as a comment on the fact that youtube results in advertising revenue for Google. But I can see there was probably a different point there.

That being said, my confusion as to the hostility to google remains in tact, though I acknowledge this is an issue through which our optics will lead to different conclusions.
posted by dios at 1:46 PM on March 3, 2014


i'd comment but i'd have to log in. no wait...
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 1:53 PM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


infini: "Who doesn't run Adblock Plus did you say?"

Some of us aren't able to run it at our workplaces.
posted by zarq at 2:27 PM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


And I actually just intentionally don't use it, as a maybe weird point of preference. Not a preference for ads so much as a preference to know what the default state of the web is and let my dispreference for particularly annoying or invasive ads drive my interest away from return visits to the sites that use 'em.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:29 PM on March 3, 2014 [6 favorites]


YouTube has stopped working well on Safari. I have the HTML5 option selected and don't have Flash installed because fuck Flash, that's why. In order to watch anything on YouTube, I usually have to fire up Chrome and then everything works hunkydory. Except Chrome sucks down battery life like a pig on my MBA. In conclusion, the Internet is a land of contrasts and fuck Flash.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:42 PM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


If you comment in a pile-on thread but don't throw yourself onto the pile, is that planking?
posted by yoink at 3:07 PM on March 3, 2014


YouTube has stopped working well on Safari. I have the HTML5 option selected and don't have Flash installed because fuck Flash, that's why. In order to watch anything on YouTube, I usually have to fire up Chrome and then everything works hunkydory. Except Chrome sucks down battery life like a pig on my MBA.

That's 'cuz Chrome comes with its own embedded Flash plugin.
posted by zsazsa at 3:22 PM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


Yes, I know. My gripe is that YouTube seems to show a clear preference for Chrome w/ Flash over Safari w/ HTML. I wonder if it has anything to do with the ads that always seem to come before the videos?
posted by entropicamericana at 3:28 PM on March 3, 2014


I am strongly of the opinion that all moaning about youtube is just by proxy moaning of "ugh videos aren't content this is a weak post"

The only real legitimate complaint is where it isn't really a video of something, but just of someone talking and it should just be a damn text post with maybe a couple photos on a blog somewhere.

But yea, in general "WE NEED TO LINK TO YOUTUBE LESS!" with a the example being a video of a cute dog really reeks of video-hating-by-proxy to me. And that horse has been ridden hard for nearly a decade now.

For some reason it reminds me of this sort of "Jesus christ dude give it a rest."

The entire derail about linking or not linking to reddit/wimp/whatever is shit too. People are only angry about that because they have some weird belief that by linking to the original content source, you're trying to seem cooler or more "clever" that you didn't just find it on some site like that. Who cares? No one is winning any medals here. And i'm absolutely on the side that linking to the original authors page is infinitely better than some other stupid aggregator site full of assholes comments.

So yea, in general kind of, jesus christ dude(s), give it a rest.
posted by emptythought at 3:36 PM on March 3, 2014


And that horse has been ridden hard for nearly a decade now.

Someone should scratch the poor thing's head. And post a video on YouTube.
posted by yoink at 3:39 PM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


I thought the point is to discuss whatever concern the poster has in effort to come to a resolution.

i don't see any resolution possible here, as it's not something within our power to do
posted by pyramid termite at 3:44 PM on March 3, 2014


MetaFilter can (and will) do whatever policy changes the community reasonably asks for. But it will have to prise access to beloved Skifcha from my cold, dead, hand.
posted by Wordshore at 3:52 PM on March 3, 2014


AskMe was very helpful for me when Google was being a little bitch.
posted by NoraCharles at 4:10 PM on March 3, 2014


I just hate being forced to have a google plus account in order to have access to playlists. I think I made a fake one or something, I can't remember.

I used to think google was cool but now I think they are just evil. Way to alienate your cash cow, dudes. (I am not stupid. I know I am just a pair of eyeballs for ads for them. )
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 4:33 PM on March 3, 2014


I like using Minitube. Only the videos. No flash, no comments...oh wait - you actually want to comment?
posted by Juso No Thankyou at 4:35 PM on March 3, 2014


How's pb coming along on videos.metafliter.com?
posted by michaelh at 5:15 PM on March 3, 2014


Actually, thats my gripe with metafilter. How come we gotta log in to comment and like stuff?

You mean thats a feature and not a bug?

What?
posted by hal_c_on at 6:17 PM on March 3, 2014


please unsubscribe me from your google
posted by odinsdream at 6:30 PM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


People are only angry about that because they have some weird belief that by linking to the original content source, you're trying to seem cooler or more "clever" that you didn't just find it on some site like that.

I appreciate links to original content sources... ('via' is fine, if you want to give someone else credit for finding the original content). Nothing annoys me more than going to an article, and finding out they are recapping another recap, and it's 3-4 links before I can get to some actual content.
posted by el io at 7:10 PM on March 3, 2014


Youtube is Google and coercive recursive.

Ever try and watch one cute pet video?
posted by Pudhoho at 7:15 PM on March 3, 2014


If people would stop being such consumers and go back to hosting their own stuff this wouldn't be a problem.

Just let me know when the script kiddies and spammers let up.
posted by ODiV at 8:23 PM on March 3, 2014


[One comment deleted. Please don't bring profile page information onto the rest of the site.]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:41 PM on March 3, 2014


Why are so many people taking pot shots at Goofy? You don't have to comment. If you disagree with Goofyy's opinion and/or stance you can make that argument without being a jerk.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:39 PM on March 3, 2014 [2 favorites]


There is no site that lets you "like" stuff without logging in.

You can drop by FullGlassEmptyClip, MefightClub's senses-shatteringly swell group blog (where I seem to do the most posting, but I am indefatigable, me), and like (well, 'thank', but it's same-meat-different-gravy) any darn post you want without logging in.

But I admit that that is somewhat unusual.

Also: Google's really getting plus annoying lately, it is true, but the MeFi Youtube Video Post Debate is a very dead letter, I think.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:38 PM on March 3, 2014 [1 favorite]


So I discovered which script Google changed overnight... back on NoScript one had to allow ajax.googleapis in order to favourite. Now that's gone ... they're fnucking around with their scripts in the back end trying to squeeze their way through all the blocks and stuff the rest of us paranoid types keep adding on. Tumblr's help desk suggested helpfully that I could find my add-ons on Firefox under "Tools"...
posted by infini at 12:04 AM on March 4, 2014


Goofyy, I love you and respect you. But I'm not going to stop linking YouTube videos here on MetaFilter.
posted by hippybear at 3:58 AM on March 4, 2014


People are only angry about that because they have some weird belief that by linking to the original content source, you're trying to seem cooler or more "clever" that you didn't just find it on some site like that.

Is this something people have told you about their own beliefs, or an interpretation you've come up with yourself?
posted by stebulus at 5:52 AM on March 4, 2014


Let me take a moment to say that FullGlassEmptyClip is a beautiful little piece of web design and wow thanks for sharing it here.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:01 AM on March 4, 2014 [1 favorite]


You don't need to follow their naming policy rules. But if you're caught violating it, they will treat it as any other TOS violation and block your account. A risk.

A definite risk, seeing as how the TOS for G+ are necessarily more restrictive than those for Gmail, which never had a "real name" policy before the current round of re-education camps, self-criticism and loyalty oaths kicked in. It is now possible for somebody who actually fell for the "you must join G+" scam to lose access to an extensive Gmail archive just for failing to provide an acceptably "real" name to G+, which sucks.

I never did fall for it (thanks, Adblock Plus, for making it so easy to get rid of the shitty interstitials) but all the same I could clearly see where things were headed and have now jumped ship. Fastmail's spam filter is not quite the equal of Gmail's, but it's plenty good enough, and feeling like client instead of cattle would easily be worth the $100 I've paid Fastmail for my next three years of service even if Fastmail were not the absolute pleasure to use that it is.
posted by flabdablet at 8:38 AM on March 4, 2014 [1 favorite]


This is exactly why I can't Hangout or do any of the Gplus things... they disabled my real name account after refusing my govt issued ID as proof of age, claiming they wanted me to run a credit card payment through instead. And my nym account, an ancient beta, also has its profile disabled from back when we had the nym wars.

Whatever...
posted by infini at 8:46 AM on March 4, 2014


When I asked about a (non-existent) feature that would save me a ton of work, Fastmail got their devs to start working on it. (And in the meantime, they did what I needed doing for me.)

I don't see youtube doing anything similar anytime soon. Sorry.
posted by Juso No Thankyou at 9:16 AM on March 4, 2014


I will be leaving the googlesphere when a decent Mozilla, Jolla or Ubuntu phone makes its way to the US market

I, too, will be a Google user forever.
posted by DWRoelands at 9:56 AM on March 4, 2014 [1 favorite]


Jolla phones have a waiting list but when they release the next model, I'm sure we could come up with a secret quonsar swap deal ;p
posted by infini at 10:27 AM on March 4, 2014


Sailfish and Ubuntu have both been ported to the Nexus 4 - I'm just waiting for one or the other to become a little more stable and feature complete. The only killer app I really need is Spotify, which runs native on both and under android emulation on Sailfish.
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:42 AM on March 4, 2014


Let me take a moment to say that FullGlassEmptyClip is a beautiful little piece of web design and wow thanks for sharing it here.

Thank you! I am very proud of it -- I think it's my best work thus far in the making-things-pretty area.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:13 PM on March 4, 2014 [2 favorites]


The good news, though, is that they're rolling out a new social media platform especially designed for fans of vintage newspaper comics: Barney Google+.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:06 PM on March 4, 2014


Is this something people have told you about their own beliefs, or an interpretation you've come up with yourself?

It's an(admittedly somewhat snarky) paraphrasing of the gist of what people have stated in other comment threads on other sites. But the direction and phrasing of the anger here has been nearly word for word of the stuff that when drilled in to, leads to that kind of conclusion other places.

If you want to drill down to some deep level, no, no one has directly stated that on MeFi. But this is a really common(and tiresome to me) internet gripe that's been going on since before linking to youtube videos was even a thing.

"Oh, you obviously saw this on XYZ content aggregation site popular at the time, why not link to them?" Is assumptiony and crappy too, if you're going to rail on my reasons for thinking their anger is tiresome/dumb.
posted by emptythought at 5:42 PM on March 4, 2014


It is now possible for somebody who actually fell for the "you must join G+" scam to lose access to an extensive Gmail archive just for failing to provide an acceptably "real" name to G+, which sucks.

Is that recently true? I had a faux ID/gmail addy that Google unplussed a couple of months back, but the gmail addy still works fine, and even occasionally asks me to join G+
posted by Sparx at 6:28 PM on March 4, 2014


entropicamericana: YouTube has stopped working well on Safari. I have the HTML5 option selected and don't have Flash installed because fuck Flash, that's why. In order to watch anything on YouTube, I usually have to fire up Chrome and then everything works hunkydory. Except Chrome sucks down battery life like a pig on my MBA. In conclusion, the Internet is a land of contrasts and fuck Flash.

I'd gotten sick of how slow YouTube (Safari, HTML5) was lately, and I recently discovered and activated the Youtube Feather beta. It's a much faster-loading, stripped-down page, although it doesn't have the comments. I usually don't want to read YouTube comments, so I don't mind having to follow an extra link to the default version of the page on the rare occasion that I do.
posted by JiBB at 2:47 AM on March 5, 2014


"Oh, you obviously saw this on XYZ content aggregation site popular at the time, why not link to them?" Is assumptiony and crappy too, if you're going to rail on my reasons for thinking their anger is tiresome/dumb.

No, not planning to rail. I agree that that opinion is assumptiony and crappy. Thanks for expanding on the background.
posted by stebulus at 6:03 AM on March 5, 2014


Happy Birthday MetaTalk.
posted by unliteral at 8:25 PM on March 13, 2014 [1 favorite]


« Older Use of the "we" when referring to the United...   |   Wanting Clarification Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments