AVID:Requests for Comment/Prohibit future YouTube uploads

The following discussion is closed.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

SNOW closing as  failed per overwhelming consensus. (Lets chat!) 09:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Prohibiting future YouTube uploads and requiring mp4s in future

As you all know, YouTube has an algorithm that recommends videos at the end of each video which may include upsetting news. climate change. extreme weather, COVID-19 etc. that I personally avoid and are not logo-related. Please prohibit YouTube uploads in future and require mp4s for videos. also convert as many YouTube videos to mp4 as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jethelogolover (talk • contribs)

Oppose

1. Oppose I get it, but I honestly don't care about the stupid algorithm. Banning YouTube uploads will create severe backlash. I only upload MP4s if needed. (What you gonna do when clip-ons come for you!?) 11:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose I understand what you're saying about the video recommendations issue after a video ends, but I don't think that requiring an edit to do so is going to make it any better. Plus, I don't see this a lot happening nowadays, so that's getting a big fat diss. Vmoney25 (talk and also check out my sandbox) 10:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose because this is proposing a requirement, a ban on future YouTube uploads. Not only do a lot of contributors on this site lack the ability of uploading captures to the wiki, but also because there isn't a clear reason as to why YouTube uploads should be disallowed other than "algorithm bad". Moreover the algorithm, a logo-related video pops up in the feed for the most part, so if anything, these irrelevant videos, let alone upsetting ones, are rare to come by. Plus, if YouTube uploads will be thrown out the window, then there's another video sharing website you forgot to mention that will make this request look hypocritical and that doesn't carry the same issues as what you brought up. Camenati (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per Camenati. Not even a half-second of thought shows how undercooked this proposal is. the algorithm also recommends videos based on the user in question's watch history, so if you're getting content that you don't want to see, then you only really have yourself to blame. (Lets chat!) 04:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose per everyone, and I don't think Miraheze's servers can handle so many videos like YT. --Logohub (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
6. Oppose per everyone. As a logo capturer myself, I can't be bothered to find another video hosting site for stuff like this. Additionally, logo capturers like Broken Saw and LogicSmash wouldn't move away from YouTube that easily, and all this really does is just more work for video capturing. Last but not least, the algorithm argument, which just comes off as selfish. YouTube tailors the perfect videos for viewers while gathering data in the background, which is exactly what happened here. YouTube has essentially seen you watch logo videos, hence there are more of them in your recommended. I'll be blunt here and just state that complaining about YouTube logo-related recommendation problems in AVID is a no-go. You let YouTube gather info, it's you and YouTube that's doing this, not us. Sorry if this came as little harsh. VPJHuk (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I do understand your frustrations with the algorithm pulling up nonsensical and unrelated recommended content to logo uploads (trust me, you're not alone on that); but the fact is, YouTube has effectively become the video sharing site by default and the infrastructure of sites have built around that same default of YouTube being there. To propose any other solution (at least for a project this size) would be nowhere near as convenient to our userbase. Heart's in the right place, but weigh in on the benefits and drawbacks before coming back with a proposal like this. Solarstrike (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
8. Oppose You didn't give us any rationale other than "I hate the YouTube algorithm!" There is not any other person having an issue of the video links appearing at the end screen, so I'm surprised this is being put out as a life-or-death situation. Nonetheless, this is such a harmless feature, and if we somehow did pass this due to some baloney, I think this would cause a lot of controversy and headache to replace the wiki's video captures, seeing as almost all of them come from YouTube. This RfC was not of sufficient validity to warrant my support. Compooper (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
9. Oppose As per everyone else. Even the bureaucrats are disagreeing. The YT algorithm doesn't have any negative impact on the AVID. Sorry if this came across as rude, but it makes absolutely no sense to ban Youtube solely because of the algorithm. IdKid2027 (talk)
10. Oppose. What? Not only is the idea nothing more than "Youtube's algorithm sucks" but Miraheze cannot handle a sudden influx of videos. Dominicmgm (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
11. Oppose No. Just, no. 14:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
12. Oppose Per everyone. Gilby1385 (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.