Probably bots, people who do nothing but dislike videos, Indian sweatshops that are human bot farms, dislikes driven by social media posts calling for users to add dislikes, etc.
> dislikes driven by social media posts calling for users to add dislikes
this is not spam. how does youtube knows which dislikes are driven by 'social media post' ?
> Indian sweatshops that are human bot farms
someone is paying sweatshops to dislike whitehouse youtube? How do you know this ?
>> dislikes driven by social media posts calling for users to add dislikes
> this is not spam. Also how you think youtube knows if a certain user is disliking because they read a social media post ?
I believe Reddit calls similar activity "brigading," and it's against the rules there.
Dislikes are there to help human users of Youtube (and the AI recommender systems of Google) not to be some sort of god given metric of anything. Spam is anything which makes dislikes less useful as metric for those things. Users who dislike everything aren't a useful metric.
>Also how you think youtube knows which dislikes are driven by 'social media post' ?
A sudden jump in dislikes with a referal tag of <insert social media>. Probably mixed with their knowledge of those user's other Youtube browsing behaviors. And Google's absurd knowledge of your internet browsing behaviors via its massive analytics network. I'm sure there's whole teams doing nothing but this at Youtube and I suspect they have very sophisticated methods at this point.
(Disclosure: I live outside the USA, I'm not politically active, I have no horse in this race)
It's clear from the way that many people write that if "their side" is doing something it's almost certainly the best of reasons and if "the other side" is doing something it's for the worst of reasons.
From the HN guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
How can we reintroduce good faith into everyone's interactions with the political class? Right now it seems it's perfectly OK to assume the worst possible interpretation of anything a politician says*
When did the world get like this? How do we fix it?
* if s/he isn't from your party. If s/he is from your party, of course you assume the best interpretation.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/07/11/a-short-his...
edit: And if I remember in Rome a politician was literally killed by a mob of his opponent's constituents so this has been going on for thousands of years.