Google+ Integration: The harms outweigh the Benifits.
Debate Rounds (4)
NOTE: Rounds are 4000 Characters for this to not run on.
NOTE2: I will refer to this update as the "Google+ Update" Even though I refer to the update as a whole. Please do not semantically separate the 2. For info, see the vid.
I noticed TheMohawkNinja's last debate on this topic was not note-worthy, So I intend to make a legitimate argument and not forfeit. First round is for acceptance only.
The Update's info, and definition, is what is in the Video cited.
No trolling, semantics, bla bla bla daleks. Anyways, I hope for a great debate.
Feel Free to add Clarifications in the comments, but do not accept like 2 minutes afterward please.
This quote, the #1 quote by a user under the name James Gandofini, was the #1 Comment on the Petition to change the comments back to their original form . It is because I agree with many of the Reasons on this petition, and the negatives associated with this update, that I am in affirmation today.
Let us start off with the reasons that this update is harmful
1. GOOGLE + MAKES IT INCREDIBLY HARD IN ORDER TO RETAIN an anonymous identity.
Co-Founder of Youtube itself Jawed Karim himself Declared: ""Why the f*** do i need a google+ account to comment on a video?" The fact of it is, Stripping the shelter to hide behind to be unknown if you have a google+ account already that you are forced to use. Note the following: Over 80% of Youtube users had a google+ before the update. 
2. The Google+ update Caused many Videos to be lost entirely 
Many users lost content due to a 2-week recovery policy put in by the Google+ update, forcing them to switch.
3. Google+ Has caused Lost Notifications and other problems relating to it. 
As Evidenced in the 2nd Video, and the comments of  and more, Youtube google+ Integration has not only cost convenience as evidenced in the video, but has completely lost some notifications, causing less of the interaction between channel operators and followers, with ripple effects such as lost subscribers and viewers as well as revenue.
4. Changes Regarding Length and links in comments have been removed. 
For instance, the Link feature used has been taken down due to abuse. If abuse of the system of the update wasn't a harm, I do not know what the word harm means. In the Mean time, People are abusing the removal of the Character limit by posting movie scripts, ASCII art, and other spammy messages .
5. Youtube new moderation Screws with messages with their "spam" filter.
As seen in the Video above, it was nearly impossible to retrieve perfectly acceptable comments, which could amount to thousands of post of meaningful missing comments, a definite negative side effect, stifling the atmosphere of youtube Comments.
6. The Grandfather Clause means Millions of comments can now not be replied to 
Simply stated and simple in meaning, no replies to old popular comments, or old comments at all, preventing much intellectual discourse, as well as stifling replies of the old system.
7. Features are not there due to new commenting system
2 Prominent Features of the old System Have been taken out, those being Seeing Info About users by hovering, and seeing both New and Relevant comments at the same time.  These features were great for convenience, and them being gone is now a major harm.
8. And Finally, Google+ Makes everything take longer.
From Commenting to Sharing To nearly everything on youtube, it is hampered, obstructed, or blocked by the new update. The core that we love is still there, surrounded by the cold hard shell of the Google+ update. It is for these reasons and many more I ask for an Affirmative Vote in todays's Debate.
I realize I have more characters, but f*ck it.
 Video #2
Firstly, it is on the part of the user that such anonymity remains there, as there is no evidence to suggest that Google makes any attempt to ascertain your true identity. There is just as much capability for a user to lie about their real name whilst making a Google+ account as there is for that same user to reveal their real name when making their YouTube account.
Lastly on this point, your note at the end only serves my point. What that 80% represents, is that when the update came out, four out of every five YouTube users already had the main prerequisite for being able to comment on YouTube.
"2. The Google+ update Caused many Videos to be lost entirely"
Source #3 only cites vague issues, without referring to any numbers at all, except for the number "177" which was referring to the number of minutes in the movie Braveheart as a user posted the entire script into a comment to prove the infinite characters feature.
"3. Google+ Has caused Lost Notifications and other problems relating to it."
I can say the same thing about this that I did of point #2 in that no numbers are cited, and only a small number of users, as far as I can tell from your sources, actually has this notification issue.
Lastly on this point, your asserted "ripple effects" are an example of a slippery slope fallacy.
"4. Changes Regarding Length and links in comments have been removed"
Firstly, as you state, the link feature has been taken down due to abuse. That being said, links can still be posted via the description, and by messaging the user, therefore there are still workarounds to this.
While I can't deny such use of the character limit, the main content of such ASCII art seems to involve the Bob's Army art, which is in it of itself, a protest to the change . People's abhorrence to the new system is what has caused the spam, not so much people's immaturity.
"5. Youtube new moderation Screws with messages with their "spam" filter."
"Nearly impossible" is a highly subjective term here, as the person in the video is able to get to the relevant comment in five clicks. I wouldn't personally label five clicks to reply as "nearly impossible".
Lastly on this point, if the comment was truly something of value, then other users would thumbs it up, putting it at the top of the comment list.
"6. The Grandfather Clause means Millions of comments can now not be replied to"
The breaking of old things tends to happen a lot. Today, for example, was the release of the 0.23 update for Kerbal Space Program. All mods for this game that have yet to be updated, don't work . If we look further back to the 0.21 update, all save files were broken along with all mods, meaning that players would have to start from scratch each time . Such lack of grandfather code is inevitable in many cases like this. That isn't something to hold against it though, as it is most likely something that couldn't be avoided.
"7. Features are not there due to new commenting system"
"Major harm" implies that there is something wrong with the system at some fundamental level, whereas in my opinion, and even in your previous sentence, it is just a bit of an inconvenience. This isn't something to get up and protest about.
"8. And Finally, Google+ Makes everything take longer."
Just as in point #7, this is a mere inconvenience, and nothing more.
1. http://www.youtube.com... (seen in many of the videos)
I will reply to your replies, then make some more points.
Replies to point 1:
If you were one of the 80% who had already had a service from G+ linked to youtube, you would be stuck with it and not unlinkable  This is under  of how it happens. (Albeit Indirectly). This has caused many problem for people who went to youtube with google+. The problem is not google+, it's the combination that neither side wanted. Google+ people did not want their account associated with the pit of **** that is youtube comments, and youtubers didn't want to have the incredible inconvenience that is Google+.
As for point number 2, notice the big section below that was not noticed by con. Anyways, moving on.
Here are multiple help Pages that show this problem, with hundreds of likes.   About the ripple effects, we can see the same drop happened with Politico , while alternative sites to youtube continue to see increases in users.
4. First off, Many other pictures, albiet hard to locate under the thousands of comments on their official video , there has been a wide variety of spam, including swastikas, Pedobear, Hammers and Sicks, NAked women, etc etc, all made possible by this character limit removal. Bob's army is different in the respect that people want it to spread, which is why it is more noticeable. Also note: The official video has has over 32000 comments deleted due to spam and virus links.
5. The point isn't getting to it, it's getting the button to do anything, which as evidenced in the video I cited, doesn't. Also, Comments that are marked as spam are barely viewable, so thumbs up isn't going to do much of anything.
6. If It wasn't broken (Which I contend it wasn't), it doesn't need to be changed. If the Google+ update was worth it, then yes, by all means go ahead and break it. But it wasn't. And the problem still remains.
7 & 8. These inconveniences cause people to either not join, comment negatively, and do not cater to the user, the people who give youtube money. These inconveniences take away from youtube as a whole, and don't give in return.
New point #9
GOOGLE+ Phasing out inbox and adding timestamp links
With Google Making it near impossible to access your inbox from youtube, as well as opening new links when clicking on a timestamp (Both things which were not that way before the Google+ Update). These things increase loading times, Decrease Efficiency, and ultimately do not serve to help YouTube, but to harm it.
Note: I wish I could add this , but it's for a separate update.
New Point #10
New Methods of Displaying Information are not as good
As seen in the point #9, time stamps were not the only thing revamped. The Reply Display, on large amounts, will literally crash your browser  [Personal Experience]. Both of these slowed down the process. In addition, hitting(on accident or purpose) A like or Dislike would bring up an closeable box, meaning if you were reading comments, then you would have to reload the page, and start it over COMPLETLEY.
New Point #11
Sharing All your moves with google+.
If you want to remain unknown with your friends while doing something on youtube, LOLNOPE. All your moves need to be posted to google+. It's like a nagging facebook game, only there isn't a game.
That is why I want you all to vote pro.
 See source 4 of last round.
 Video 1st round.
Fixing and improving are two different things. This update has done the latter, not the former.
"...you would be stuck with it and not unlinkable." doesn't make sense. I'm assuming you were trying to say "...not able to unlink,"
Furthermore, you fail to show how a significant number of users is actually affected by this, nor do you make any attempt to prove that people didn't want this to happen.
Lastly on this point, if I were to humor you and say that your aforementioned baseless statements have sources, why couldn't a user just make a new account, and have their subscribers redirect themselves to the new account? While you may want to state that this is an inconvenience in such a way that such an inconvenience is a "harm" (as asserted in the title) that outweighs the benefits of the new update, the truth is, is that users have changed their channels for various reasons over the years, and therefore this possible inconvenience doesn't apply as a "harm" .
While it does appear that I missed part of your point, it is once again something that falls on the part of the user.
Either way, you make no attempt to defend your position after I stated a rebuttal to your sources, and therefore it carries into the next round.
"Likes" have no meaning for this debate. It simply means that somebody had a positive view of that statement, and does not reflect whether or not they had problem, and therefore does not count as examples.
Your third source simply states something vague about user-friendly photo albums. I see no relevance here.
Your fourth source doesn't state whatsoever that notifications are lost, but simply describes the new system.
Ah, so YouTube allows users to report spammed posts, making any mention of this as a problem pretty much moot since the capability for you to see the ASCII art/spam is dependent on the users' responsibility. YouTube has already accounted for this, and allows users to report spam to (if need be) ban the spamming user (or bot). This is a plus for the update. It should also be noted that the infinite character spam is also a moot point as after a certain number of lines of text, it cuts off forcing a user to hit the "read x more lines" button.
Well, if a comment is marked as spam, it makes sense that it shouldn't be visible, since it is SPAM. Also, the reason why it doesn't do anything is due to the lack of grandfathering addressed in later points.
Again, this update isn't a bug fixing update, it is an update designed to enhance the comment system and combine Google+ with YouTube. That is an improvement and feature adding update, not a bugfixing one.
If that is so, then as pro you are to assert evidence to show that people don't join, comment negatively and do not cater to the user. I particularly disagree with that last point, as I have been looking forward to the new nested commenting.
Again, the use of hyperbole in the form of "near impossible". Secondly, this is a mere inconvenience and not a "harm" as asserted by the title. If you wish to click on a timestamp, you are still fully capable to just click-and-drag the slider for the time on the video to match the timestamp. No harm done.
Once again, you only show a small percentage of users and not a significant portion of them. I can say just the opposite as I have had YouTube open for multiple hours at a time, and have not once ever had YouTube crash on me since the update.
Not a harm, but an inconvenience.
1. As shown by previous arguments, people would not want their personal information/life intruded on by youtube.
For my last refutation, this is not only forced upon them all at once, this wasn't done with warning, and so mass transits of subscribers wouldn't do too well. The problem here is that it's forced upon them, losing subs and losing a channel.
2. I pointed you lower down the page in the comments: you really did just try and deny my source based on where you think it should be. You make no attempt to defend the info as presented by my source, carries over.
3. I think that you are missing the points of the sources. #3 clearly redirects to a missing notification page, and I said that #4 lost notifications indirectly, by grouping it with other notifacations you would get on google that are prevalent for youtubers.
4. It's not moot if #1: Bots flag wrong posts and cannot be removed, as shown in video #2, and that the only other way is to find each individual offender and keep on banning them over and over and over and over and over and over... Also, the line doesn't remove the content, that would be like saying that you have to view replies, so 85 replies hitting the button crashing your browser isn't a problem. (Which I have already mentioned as one.)
5. It wasn't marked as spam by the user however. So not being able to remove it removes legitimate discussion, which is a definite harm.
6. Thus update was never argued to be a bug fixing update, a straw man on the point. Con does not counter that destroying millions of comments was worth the absolute nothing that my opponent has presented.
7 & 8 See poll here . Also see poltico argument. In addition, comments on the video and petition show this quite well.
9. The point of a timestamp was so you didn't have to do it manually, making it that way makes the feature pointless, which would just be another harming failure of this update.
10. It's selective triggering on large amounts of replies to comments, something that is rare due to the already harmful grandfather clause.
11. It's a harm not a convenience . The idea that the cesspool of the internet that you want exclusive is forced to interact with your social life is degrading google+ while not adding to youtube. People react differently to youtube comments due to the nature of them.
Three con sources under the sky,
Seven Non-Video sources set my arguments in stone,
Nine for Round 3 doomed to die,
One for the Best argument on the throne
In the Land of DDO where noobs go to die.
One Round to rule them all, One Round to find them,
One Round to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of DDO where noobs go to die.
My final Argument that rules them all: The Google+ update was done without user consent.
There was no beta for youtubers to give feedback, no way of knowing ahead of time of the change. The forcing of this upon youtubers without their consent is "ethically wrong to force these changes unto an unwilling userbase as it alienates them while devaluing the quality of the site and tarnishing your credibility."  The Idea that a company should ignore the people that give them the money they earn devalues them as a company and treats consumers as only a means to money and artificial boosts for google+ money. We "typed in youtube.com, not plus.google.com"  This says it all. When a company ignores an overwhelming majority of it's base , then they are harming the long term of the site, as well as the consumers who get the negatives of the update.
It's for these reasons and many more I ask for a ballot in affirmation for today's debate.
Also, extend all arguments
Extend all arguments
 2nd comment on source #1 on my 2nd round
It was never specified that I had to show that the benefits outweighed the harms, as con, my job is to refute your claims that the harms outweigh the benefits.
While it was forced upon them (as any update tends to be, so this isn't anything unique to YouTube), there was prior warning, as there was information out there months ago before the change happened .
All your sources showed (as I had asserted) was that only a small portion of users were distraught. There is no evidence to suggest that a significant portion of users didn't want this change.
No such additional information was ever specified. Therefore you fail to assert your point, and my rebuttal carries over.
Something must be buggy with the sources then. Either way, by the sounds of it, there isn't a significant number of users affected by this, and therefore it very well could be that only a small number of users were affected.
The video never addresses your asserted bot issues, let alone addresses if a significant portion of comments are affected.
How do we know that the user didn't mark it as spam? You make no attempt to show that the comment was flagged by a bot,
You implied that the update was to fix YouTube, by using the cliche of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Seeing as there was no flaw in the original YouTube as far as I can tell from your statements, and due to what "fixing" tends to imply in software developments, it is only logical to draw the conclusions that you interpreted this as a bugfixing update, or some other type of fixing update.
You also never proved that the number of comments was in the millions.
Poll uses subjective term "ruined", and no responses to the poll assert any sources to back their claims, for or against.
Again, it should be noted that a harm is something that could do damage to something, hence terms like "to put in harms way". This doesn't damage anything, but simply makes a feature moot.
Yet to fail to prove your point with any evidence. You even say that it's rare, so it's clearly not a big issue.
Let's explore that source, shall we: "They have completely RUINED a great thing. Comments were the number one reason why I checked my YouTube account daily. Now that desire is gone."
Uses subjective terms, is only one person, and asserts that some "desire" is gone. Hardly a harm.
Going back to the Kerbal Space Program analogy, they don't release experimental releases of their updates to everyone, as only a select few are chose for this due to the nature of development . Appealing to ethics is a subjective argument at best. Lastly, you make no attempt to prove that the update devalued them as a company.
Therefore, I ask that you vote con in this debate.
1. Video #1
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.