Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

twitlonger.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 256 posts

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#31

Post by DoreenMichele »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #29
DoreenMichele wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no real solution for that. Even the legal system flip-flops periodically. We have a Supreme Court as final arbiter of these judgement calls, but there is no means to completely escape the issue of human subjectivity influencing human judgement calls.

You can't seriously compare the legal system, where you're innocent till proven guilty, with evidence, hearings, lawyers and multiple levels of appeal with what YouTube has created: non-transparent judge, jury and the executioner in one, extremely biased moderators. Yeah, it's not as bad as Twitter, but it looks like it's getting there.

I worked in insurance. My job was making judgement calls that could stand up in court. I worked for a very large insurance company. I am pretty confident that other large companies, like Google, operate rather similarly with regards to making sure they can defend their decisions in court, if necessary.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#32

Post by ar0 »

PeterStuer wrote: post #23

Google is an American company. Their "rules" are extremely embedded in a US culture. Unfortunately YouTube is a product that is consumed worldwide. Many of the regions where it has a dominant market share for web VoD do have cultural palates that are very different from the US. I feel Google should embrace their international position and be less biased in it's reasoning.

So, what is your suggestion here? Should they run with the most open interpretation (i.e. allow anything that is socially acceptable somewhere on earth) or most strict interpretation (i.e. limit stuff that might be offensive somewhere on earth)?

Both approaches look rather impossible to me: the former would mean allowing stuff that might even be illegal in the U.S., the latter would mean that e.g. all videos showing alcohol would have to disappear.

What is your specific example here?

Also note that this is not about allowing videos onto the platform, but only about next to which videos to show ads. And I would guess that most ad customers would want rather strict rules, so it makes sense for YouTube to listen to their customers here.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#33

Post by bufferoverflow »

icebraining wrote: post #19
bufferoverflow wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem with these rules is subjectivity. Something you would consider offensive is probably not from my perspective. In the end it will be a moderator bias galore. I can easily see a Christian mod demonetizing atheist videos, democrat republican, prude free, etc etc etc. I'd like to see a true free speech platform with violence/nudity sectioned off according to the local laws, and then let the advertisers d…

But what advertiser wants to spend their time selecting videos to put their ads on? I don't see how your solution would be accepted. And automatic categorization doesn't work - otherwise Google wouldn't be spending money on humans.

Automatic detection of curse words and nudity does work, as far as I know.

The regular categorization should be left to the publishers, but it should be much wider and multilevel, not the current choice of, what, 10 categories?

Yes, other things like hate speech are harder to detect, but, as I said, it's extremely subjective, and should not be dealt with in a general way, but rather broken down into subcategories, like "religion criticism", "radical feminism", "men's rights", etc, whatever ruffles people's feathers these days.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#34

Post by amarkov »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #25
rayalez wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes sense. The problem is that at the end of the day the decision will have to be made either by algorithms or by people. Algorithms are less nuanced, hard to write, and will often fail, people are expensive and biased. With the amount of videos youtube has to process, and without an almost human-level AI, I don't think there's a perfect solution. Algorithms flagging videos for review, and then humans making d…

The solution is obvious - tag/categorize the videos, according to very strict rules, let the advertisers decide which tags to serve. Allow the publishers to dispute the tags. For instance, "nudity" can be defined as "visible genitals, female nipples" in the US. "Controversial" tag should not even exist, it makes no sense, any non-trivial subject is controversial. And honestly, YouTube can benefit from a more precise…

Strict rules for tagging would just run into the same problems as strict rules for demonetization. LGBT groups won't be any happier to see their content publicly branded "sexually explicit" than just demonetized.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#35

Post by russellbeattie »

YouTubers are, as a group, the most entitled, selfish, immature group of people on the planet. They are constantly whining about what is an incredible service, that they are allowed to use, free of charge. The amount of time, money and effort it would cost for any of these "creators" to host their own multi-gigabyte videos with millions of downloads is mind boggling, yet they have little appreciation for the infrastructure and man-hours involved to create and run that business. They have no idea the gift they've been given. Instead they are endlessly trying to find some cause to assume that Google is out to get them somehow. It's a level of self-centered childishness that boggles my brain every single time I read some half-ass conspiracy post complaining about it. There are competitors to YouTube - if you don't like their policies, feel free to post your videos on the other services. It's as simple as that. Yes, everyone watches YouTube, but that doesn't suddenly turn Google into a public resource, nor should they be required to guarantee your sketchy video has advertisers.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#37

Post by dragonwriter »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #29
DoreenMichele wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no real solution for that. Even the legal system flip-flops periodically. We have a Supreme Court as final arbiter of these judgement calls, but there is no means to completely escape the issue of human subjectivity influencing human judgement calls.

You can't seriously compare the legal system, where you're innocent till proven guilty, with evidence, hearings, lawyers and multiple levels of appeal with what YouTube has created: non-transparent judge, jury and the executioner in one, extremely biased moderators. Yeah, it's not as bad as Twitter, but it looks like it's getting there.

What YouTube has created is a direct consequence of the structural incentives of the civil justice system which reflects it's practical outcomes quite well.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#38

Post by bufferoverflow »

amarkov wrote: post #34
bufferoverflow wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is obvious - tag/categorize the videos, according to very strict rules, let the advertisers decide which tags to serve. Allow the publishers to dispute the tags. For instance, "nudity" can be defined as "visible genitals, female nipples" in the US. "Controversial" tag should not even exist, it makes no sense, any non-trivial subject is controversial. And honestly, YouTube can benefit from a more precise…

Strict rules for tagging would just run into the same problems as strict rules for demonetization. LGBT groups won't be any happier to see their content publicly branded "sexually explicit" than just demonetized.

By strict rules I also mean objective and unbiased.

Penis/vagina -> nudity (even if it's medical or educational).

"Fuck" -> cursing (even if it's about the etymology of the word).

Advocating murder of group X -> ban (even if you're quoting a religious text).

If these rules are strict and clear, we have a chance of creating a legal-like system. Otherwise it's subjective chaos with everyone pissed off.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#39

Post by mschuster91 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #31
bufferoverflow wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't seriously compare the legal system, where you're innocent till proven guilty, with evidence, hearings, lawyers and multiple levels of appeal with what YouTube has created: non-transparent judge, jury and the executioner in one, extremely biased moderators. Yeah, it's not as bad as Twitter, but it looks like it's getting there.

I worked in insurance. My job was making judgement calls that could stand up in court. I worked for a very large insurance company. I am pretty confident that other large companies, like Google, operate rather similarly with regards to making sure they can defend their decisions in court, if necessary.

Haha no. Google, Fb, Twitter, Youtube - they all do not have the incentive to do so, as there is no way to sue one of them for wrongful account termination.

With my telco, I can sue - and unless I'm more than 3 months behind in payment they legally can't cut me off in Germany. Who says that the social media giants shouldn't be regulated in the same way, given their importance in today's world?

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#40

Post by chmod775 »

ajkjk wrote: post #30
PeterStuer wrote: post #23

Google is an American company. Their "rules" are extremely embedded in a US culture. Unfortunately YouTube is a product that is consumed worldwide. Many of the regions where it has a dominant market share for web VoD do have cultural palates that are very different from the US. I feel Google should embrace their international position and be less biased in it's reasoning.

What culture-specific reasonings are you referring to, exactly?

The US is unusually sensitive about naked bodies and swearing for instance.

In most countries it's unusual to BEEP swear words on TV, and in some other countries nobody will bat an eye at casual nudity, even in TV shows aimed at children.

Post reply on HN