On hiding the creation date of internet content \ stacker news ~Design

pull down to refresh

On hiding the creation date of internet content

1079 sats \ 20 comments \ @SimpleStacker 23 Nov Design

I hate YouTube Shorts, and I hate that Google keeps trying to force it on me. I usually click the x to hide that crap, but Google made it so you can only hide it for 30 days at a time. (Jerks)

But today, they got me. I clicked on a news related short that caught my attention. I was immediately filled with shame. But what bothered me even more than violating my integrity was that there was no date visible anywhere on the video

And, naturally, the video content was some controversy about the culture wars. But without an easily visible timestamp on the video, I couldn't place the controversy within its proper context. I was free to imagine in my own mind what events the controversy was really about.

Eventually, I did find the date. I had to click on the 3-dots "hamburger icon" and pull up the video details. But 99% of viewers are not gonna do that.

This made me think. I've noticed on a number of blogs and other websites that don't always make the creation date of the content visible. Personally, I think this is more than just bad design. I would go as far as to say it's unethical because it misleads and can make old content seem new, or vice versa. It makes it harder for the reader/viewer to sort out whether the content is still relevant and to understand the content within its proper context.

I'm not gonna go as far as to say there should be a law about this, but when I see web design that doesn't clearly show the date the content was created, I'm going to treat it with greater suspicion and use my voice to speak out against that website. Thankfully, Stacker.News is very transparent about when all content was created.

What do you think? Do you agree with me that it is unethical to hide the date that content was created? Or do you think it's fine and that there are good reasons for it?

view all related items

168 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 23 Nov

It depends on the nature of the content. If someone is attempting to make something that's evergreen, I can see why they might even prefer to leave off the date.

34 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker OP 23 Nov

I'd argue that evergreen content can still include timestamps for when it was last updated, like "updated on YYYY-MM-DD", and that would never not be helpful.

37 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 23 Nov

Sometimes people are dismissive of things because of when they were written. If you want someone wanted their ideas judged purely on their content, I can see omitting any extraneous details.

26 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker OP 23 Nov

Fair. And I suppose some algos will bias against older content.

The dynamics may be somewhat like clickbait. Many well-intentioned content creators are still forced into using clickbait images and titles, because they'd have much lower viewership if they didn't.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 23 Nov

It wouldn't have occurred to me, but you're probably right.

179 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 24 Nov

My first encounter with the no-date philosophy was this newsletter from Patrick McKenzie:

"But publication dates often provide important context!" Horsepuckey. You can, and should, make the strategic decision that you'll primarily write things which retain their value. (It takes approximately the same amount of work to create great writing which lasts versus creating great writing which ages quickly. Given the choice, unless you're the New York Times and your entire business is built around throwing out some of the world's best writing every day right after breakfast, you should choose to write things which last. After all, you don't write software with the explicit intention that it will suffer bitrot hours after release, now do you?)

If the context were truly important some of the time and not others, people would make the considered decision "Does this post need a publication date?", but nobody does that. Most writing only carries a publication date because that was inserted several years ago into the WordPress template by a designer. The designer likely knows nothing about your company, to say nothing of the instant work. He put in a date because WordPress makes it really easy and because everyone knows that blog posts have dates. He also probably made the decision to make the date front-and-center in the blog post, rather than treating it as minimal-impact metadata and burying it after the main text or putting it in a bots-only header.

One of the first things I look for is the date on article. I might be wrong to consider the date, but without the author refreshing the article regularly, there is risk the information is dated.

47 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheMorningStar 24 Nov

I agree. It's unethical to hide dates. I font know why they are doing it. Even for so many news sites I see they're hiding dates for general interest posts. The media does a lot of unethical things these days. I wonder if they are trying to survive against social media.

37 sats \ 1 reply \ @zapsammy 24 Nov

how many times have A.I. bots already rewritten the most commonly referenced webpages, and how much of the internet remains true? how deep is this simulation? when has the last reset taken place?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinPilgrim 24 Nov

Exactly

37 sats \ 0 replies \ @dtonon 24 Nov

I absolutely agree. This is a deceptive tactic to make users think it is fresh content, and probably to fool the search engine SEO algorithm. Regarding this last point, I have noticed that several websites are starting to show an "updated at" to force a recent date.

37 sats \ 0 replies \ @plebpoet 24 Nov

I'm kinda with you. Just another reason I choose to spend my time on SN over other places

37 sats \ 2 replies \ @OriginalSize 24 Nov

Annoying yes but I rarely run into the unethical case. Another tragedy of commons and reminder (like Google pushing Shorts) to take control of how I consume.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker OP 24 Nov

I do wonder though why Shorts doesn't feature the date prominently by default. Strange design decision since a lot of YouTube content is context sensitive to the date.

79 sats \ 0 replies \ @OriginalSize 24 Nov

Shorts is full dopamine mode. Dates run the risk of making you think conscious thoughts and that could easily lead you astray from the algorithm's delicate plans.

37 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 24 Nov

there was no date visible anywhere on the video

it's a bit hidden but available:

edit: ohh, I should have read to the end first haha

Eventually, I did find the date. I had to click on the 3-dots "hamburger icon" and pull up the video details. But 99% of viewers are not gonna do that.

What do you think? Do you agree with me that it is unethical to hide the date that content was created? Or do you think it's fine and that there are good reasons for it?

I think it depends on the content. A meme doesn't need a date for example. Or anything else that isn't related to the current date.

33 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker OP 24 Nov

Heh, I like how you mentioned that you made an edit rather than just editing away the old content directly. Very in the spirit of this post :)

It's true that not all content requires a date, but I think even memes if they could be verifiably timestamped somehow, would add a lot of context and understanding as to the social conditions under which the memes were created.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @satoshiiiiiii 24 Nov

Actually anyone can find this secret information by going deep down in ARPANET.

And this information is stored in the first ip address or device associated with ARPANET and it can be tracked by network footprints.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinPilgrim 24 Nov

Yeah the date is there and notably hard to find. I keep reaching for that button often to check date and description, it's is a pain. It should be made more accessible for how important it is and how often we need it. We don't know the reson of design choice on YT. Two clicks is only one more click than one click (if it was three that would be too far). In the menu though, details button is at the top of the menu with several other buttons. It could be there just for a simpler UI? Who knows 🤷‍♂️

Amethyst, a Nostr client doesn't show publish time anywhere even in the menus in the immersive video player. I don't have an Instagram or Tiktok account, but in FB lite last I checked, reels don't diaplay publish time anywhere even in the menus. X displays the publish date on posts, so you just click on the text below to be taken to the post revealing publish date in one click from immersive video.

If you go to one of Marques Brownlee's first videos about Gemeni's early version, being one of few newer AI models to reference it's sources of info. But Marques points out that some sources are fake with no factual or human written resource article backing it! Google claimed that they will be replaced with lagit sources later on. The youtuber goes on to describe that these empty "sources" could later be filled by generation or whatever they want it to be making sources look lagit when they're not! Google could further use this to spread lies and make it seem like sources are real when they're not.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Imyourfed 24 Nov

I agree with you. They are hiding date, promoting AI generated video craps, and tricking us to click on shitty advertisments etc. I'm not even using official YT app instead I use a FOSS client now that cuts the crap of shorts, ads, and personalised experience. And for websites yes! Whenever I see a content on web and it isn't clear when it was created I just leave it or might read it if the content is based on very general topics.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @1GLENCoop 24 Nov

20241124T123220Z: agreed.