141–150 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're telling me there's a way we might demonetize "kinder playtime", "hailey's magical playhouse", "funtoys", and "toys unlimited"? THAT is a noble cause! Gimme the sixty-five. I'm on the job!
Could you elaborate on what these channels are and why you would want them demonetized? Are their videos actually sponsored by Disney et.al.?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In other words, if you video has ads, then the probability of appearing in searches and related content is higher So users that permit ads on their video get a virtual "fast lane" on the Comcast internet service. You know, I'm sick and tired of these internet service providers violating Net Neutrality principles. Oh, wait. It's YouTube? Oh, that's fine then./s
You do realise you're comparing a company that makes its money from advertising on top of an otherwise video sharing platform, with a company you pay a fixed monthly fee to access the internet, right?
I know you meant YouTube, but that describes Comcast cable TV service as well. YouTube is a competitor. Should Comcast be forced to deliver a competitor's content?
>with a company you pay a fixed monthly fee to access the internet
Some parts of the internet. You don't get the "whole" internet. You've had limited internet and fast/slow lanes for decades.
http://www.newsgroupreviews.com/comcast-newsgroups.html
https://www.xfinity.com/support/internet/list-of-blocked-por...
On the upside of this, I've seen lots more creators including sponsors in the actual video. (This video brought to you by Blue Apron) seemingly with lots of creative control over how they present it. This seems like a much more sustainable method. Ad blockers can't do anything about it, and they are safe from random de monitization. On the other hand it's more work for the creator, and for people just starting it may…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a feature (of content-targeted advertising), not a bug. If a business model relies on tracking and targeting unknowing users who aren't aware that they can resist being tracked and targeted, maybe it was a crappy business model in the first place. This is a false dichotomy. There exists a large, partly unexplored space between hard embedded pre-recorded ads and targeted advertising that makes use of trackin…
Hmmm, that's a possibility I haven't considered. I suppose because I'm having trouble imagining what that in-between space looks like. If an ad is targeted at a user, doesn't that necessarily mean they were tracked to some degree (i.e. some data is known about them, and an ad is being shown to them based on whatever that known data is)? Conversely, if nothing is known about the user (they haven't been tracked at all)…
Linus isn't going to open a video talking about women's pantyhose. He will open a video talking about an accessory, peripheral, or computer part that a viewer is actually more likely to buy. This is very effective advertising.
Since most of LMG's content is medium and long format and doesn't rely on complete artistic integrity in each of its videos as part of the value, baked-in advertising is acceptable and understandable.
While baked-in advertising still doesn't work for other kinds of creators, it doesn't mean some form of targeted advertising can not be done in an ethical fashion.
I am almost certain another factor is clickthrough from "undesirable" referral links. ReviewBrah [0] (The Report of The Week) is the most family friendly channel with high subscribers that I can think of. He reviews fast food and has a unique fashion style and personality. Very clean. He has become a popular meme and is regularly linked to from 4chan. I struggle to find a single thing that could warrant demonetisatio…
Another hypothesis I've heard that would explain the same effect is that youtube groups uploaders with the preferences of their viewers. If someone has lots of viewers who also watch videos of undesirable topics, that uploader will be considered undesirable as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I uploaded a video yesterday that's already demonetized. It's part of a series to write an RSS feed reader in Python (specifically the part about adding static files to the server). Tags: python, rss, feedparser, feed reader, news aggregator, flask, css, static files It doesn't seem "controversial" to me.
I'm 99.9% sure it's nothing to do with your tags and everything to do with some sort of speech to text analysis google is doing on your video. In my case, I have a demonitized tutorial video on how to download and upgrade my software. I was a bit surprised since it was a basic boring screen share video. Nothing controversial either, until I looked at the auto generated close captioning. I said "Prosper202" but Google…
Videos are demonetized mostly on a blacklist of bad words. Run text to speech on the video before upload (preferably upload the audio only on a test channel and download the captions), and edit out all words which have any negative connotation whatsoever.
Beware - the blacklist contains a lot of words which are only bad in a certain language or a certain region or slang you might be unaware of. Use urban dictionary to find the bad words... It seems you can let a few slip through, but if a bad word appears too many times, it causes demonetization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm wondering if "flask" is getting flagged (as in relation to alcohol. Or news, because you know - "fake news"
Maybe, but the series before that had nothing to do with flask or news. For instance a video in a series about writing a Go web app had these tags: golang, http, server, redis, gorilla mux, go-redis, web, application, tutorial, howto And it was demonetized. Every single video I've uploaded seems to have been until I request manual review (which takes a couple of days).
The algorithm doesn't understand context.
I think it is right to „soft“-censor in this way (i.e. the information is accessible but not promoted). Reality without sorting and filters would be inhuman because market incentives to grab people’s attention would maximally exploit our tribal instincts and thereby completely destabilize our societies. This is already happening and it needs to stop immediately.
Who decides what to filter? How are they elected?
I think it is right to „soft“-censor in this way (i.e. the information is accessible but not promoted). Reality without sorting and filters would be inhuman because market incentives to grab people’s attention would maximally exploit our tribal instincts and thereby completely destabilize our societies. This is already happening and it needs to stop immediately.
Agreed. I mean, Russia already verifiably tried to influence the 2016 election, right? Maybe the algorithm can be adjusted to not promote content that aligns with Russian interests. That way we can ensure people are only seeing the perspectives we want them to.
Interestingly enough, there was thread saying Youtube was censoring searches of "navalnyi" a critic of Putin. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15806393