61–70 of 556 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no law making creepy comments like these illegal, at least not in the US. (I can't speak for other countries, and US law is what's relevant here.)
That doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be investigated.
The fact that Google is ceding the fight against toxic comments on YouTube is actually pretty shocking. In a company that knows more about you than you can possibly imagine, and more about automated sentiment analysis than anyone in the world, they couldn’t algorithmically determine who should be allowed to post on certain subsets of videos, or devise a system they thought was worth deploying to ensure comments meet…
The common theme in every discussion about moderation is that Google, Facebook et al have a division of literal wizards who can wave magic wands to enforce arbitrarily nuanced moderation policies at scale. This just isn't in touch with reality, but public opinion and pressure has no incentive to be rational, so blunt, restrictive policies like this one are the only path left open to these companies.
I think that the reality is that until very recently there wasn’t a huge bag of money attached the having fantastic moderation tools. I don’t moderate a large YouTube channel, but I will go out on a limb and guess that the tools are rudimentary.
Basic things like scoring the comment poster as well as the comment itself, the ability to have verified commenters (but why should this have to be a manual switch?), the ability to adjust the sensitivity of the classifier based on the intended audience of the video...
There is a massive valley of opportunity in between what we have today, and “magic wands to enforce arbitrarily nuanced moderation policies at scale” and perhaps the biggest comment platform on the Internet just decided they need to turn off comments entirely and if you do turn them back on, you need to do manual human pre-approval on each one.
The fact that Google is ceding the fight against toxic comments on YouTube is actually pretty shocking. In a company that knows more about you than you can possibly imagine, and more about automated sentiment analysis than anyone in the world, they couldn’t algorithmically determine who should be allowed to post on certain subsets of videos, or devise a system they thought was worth deploying to ensure comments meet…
The common theme in every discussion about moderation is that Google, Facebook et al have a division of literal wizards who can wave magic wands to enforce arbitrarily nuanced moderation policies at scale. This just isn't in touch with reality, but public opinion and pressure has no incentive to be rational, so blunt, restrictive policies like this one are the only path left open to these companies.
Chris Ulmer, who runs the popular YouTube channel Special Books for Special Kids, said that comments were removed from his channel despite no evidence of unacceptable comments, and YouTube told him that if he turned comments back on, he risked his channel being deleted. [EDIT: Turns out, this is not actually the case. See child comments.] https://twitter.com/chrisulmer/status/1099366622329036801 "Last night I realize…
Alternately, a "trusted moderation service" designation, where you—if you think it's worth it—can pay a third-party to do the moderation that YouTube doesn't want to pay for, and YouTube can verify such third-parties as being "thorough enough" that it won't automatically nuke a channel upon report if such a verified moderator service is doing the moderating (just like they wouldn't nuke a channel upon report if they were doing the moderating.)
The fact that Google is ceding the fight against toxic comments on YouTube is actually pretty shocking. In a company that knows more about you than you can possibly imagine, and more about automated sentiment analysis than anyone in the world, they couldn’t algorithmically determine who should be allowed to post on certain subsets of videos, or devise a system they thought was worth deploying to ensure comments meet…
It’s important to note they’re ceding a fight they never even seriously attempted to engage in where comments and content are concerned. As with all things Google and YT, if it can’t be badly automated, they’d rather kill it than set the precedent of doing anything useful. The short term result will be attention moving on. The long term is building up pressure that will probably result in major regulation. I wouldn’t…
Google+ started with a requirement for real names didn't it, no adopted identities. They stuck with it for quite some time.
IIRC it did largely cure YouTube comments. But, it damaged engagement, so ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt a creepy comment is sufficient probable cause to open an investigation, barring other indicators.
A google search has been sufficient before. Remember the pressure cooker and backpacks search from a family in New York?
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/08/governm...
Official statement: https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2019/02/more-updates... It's not "all". > A small number of creators will be able to keep comments enabled on these types of videos. These channels will be required to actively moderate their comments, beyond just using our moderation tools, and demonstrate a low risk of predatory behavior. We will work with them directly and our goal is to grow this number…
YouTube steadily moves toward the TV station model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no law making creepy comments like these illegal, at least not in the US. (I can't speak for other countries, and US law is what's relevant here.)
That doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be investigated.
Chris Ulmer, who runs the popular YouTube channel Special Books for Special Kids, said that comments were removed from his channel despite no evidence of unacceptable comments, and YouTube told him that if he turned comments back on, he risked his channel being deleted. [EDIT: Turns out, this is not actually the case. See child comments.] https://twitter.com/chrisulmer/status/1099366622329036801 "Last night I realize…
Chris Ulmer, who runs the popular YouTube channel Special Books for Special Kids, said that comments were removed from his channel despite no evidence of unacceptable comments, and YouTube told him that if he turned comments back on, he risked his channel being deleted. [EDIT: Turns out, this is not actually the case. See child comments.] https://twitter.com/chrisulmer/status/1099366622329036801 "Last night I realize…