Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

bbc.co.uk

271–280 of 556 posts

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#271

Does YouTube even need comments? I can't remember any meaningful discussion happening in the comments, it's mostly meme type stuff. Long term I can see this being the final resolution for toxic comments.

I think you need to say what you are watching to qualify your comment about the comments.

The more intellectual the content the more intellectual the comments. If you do a lot of your learning of code and development things on Youtube and watch conference talks online (rather than attend) then you are not going to find drivel in the comments.

Same with music, if you go through the back catalogue of your youth and find that record that only sold 5000 copies the first time around then the comments are going to be overwhelmingly positive.

Youtube doesn't recommend me any of these videos with meme grade comments or whatever these kiddo videos are that now can't have comments in them. I think I am watching different stuff to most people here who have a lot of hate for Youtube comments or maybe I am just not that sensitive.

To think there used to be a time when the BBC had a complete roster of paedophiles presenting all their music and TV shows and nobody noticed. The UK's most prolific paedophile worked for them for decades. How the pendulum of stranger-danger swings!

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#272
post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get where you're coming from with the academic curiosity of seeing how people think. That said, it seems you're assuming comments are simply a one-way output of different people's thought patterns, rather than a two-way process that has an effect on others. It's obvious it has a two-way effect - the point of reading and listening is to learn, and we can learn in ways that make us worse off. The idea that we should…

You can't exactly challenge ideas if the challenger ideas need to be approved or in an approved venue. It's not that long ago that the Catholic church had people executed for heresy.

I didn't say that ideas need to be 'approved'. I challenged the idea that the ability to reach a worldwide audience should be free and available to anybody, regardless of content therein.

Filtering mechanisms exist in all forums, online and offline. Some suck, like certain sub-communities in youtube. The discussion should be about what filters we employ to best balance the positive value of conversation against the negative.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God forbid they put a link to Wikipedia under flat earth videos, huh?

You only think that's a good idea because you don't believe in flat earth. They could equally put a link to flat earth sites under NASA/SpaceX videos. Do you really want to decree that whatever they link is "true" just because you agree with them in this particular instance?

I try not to consider things in terms of absolutes, so to answer your direct question: yes, I am pretty comfortable believing the vast majority of such links would be substantially factual.

Google already does this, I don't see the issue with it hypothetically happening on YouTube. If you search for a well-known person, place or thing, you'll be presented with information aggregated from trustworthy sources. Can they be wrong? Sure, and it happens. It's not sinister.

It sounds like you're envisioning someone manually tagging things. That would be odd and suboptimal. Instead, just tag helpful Wikipedia pages about the broad scientific consensus of things on relevant videos.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#274
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't refuted my argument that super low-friction reach is valuable enough to preserve. I have pretty decent karma in HN and there are much better filtering mechanisms in this community to remove bad actors and posts than there are on youtube. That's the context of my post that, while hidden, is nonetheless present in this community. There is no community for many youtube comments - its driveby comments that ge…

What's so bad about being exposed to the public id that you'd be willing to even loose a sliver of free speech to prevent it? You're already being exposed to the public id every moment, awake or asleep, because part of it is you.

> What's so bad about being exposed to the public id

I dunno, wake up and look outside.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#275
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I am objectively wrong, I want my mind to be changed. I expect this to be the case for around 10% of my ‘knowledge’, even on topics I care to educate myself about, and much worse on other issues. Putting a link under the videos isn’t likely to achieve that, but that’s a separate issue. The only problem I have with Google doing this, is that I trust corporations and government about the same — i.e. that both will…

You're missing the point. Most things in life aren't settled as easily as the flat Earth debate. Google could also do this on something that's far more controversial (eg political) and justify it in the same manner. Imagine if Google were against climate change and every video about climate change gets a link to some website that says it's not true. That wouldn't be acceptable, would it? But being okay with Google do…

Recent past (e.g. in US politics) has shown that our society needs mechanisms to incentivize consensus. Google promoting fake information would get appropriate push-back and in the end help form consensus. Yes, even on political topics I'd be fine with that as long as they try to stay fact based. There is a lot of room for honest actors to discuss ideas. But I'm fine with society (including companies like google) pushing back once people (including politicians) go crazy with stupid positions (likely trying to widen the overton window to redefine the "reasonable center")

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#276
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gab just released a tool that permits anybody (with a browser plugin) to comment on any web page, so this will probably not only hurt legitimate users, it will not do what it's intended to either. Just like every other moral panic in history.

This isn't a moral panic, I don't know why people push that line anytime racists or pedophiles are even mildly inconvenienced. Advertisers left Youtube because people left creepy and sexually suggestive comments on some videos, and Youtube responded to preserve ad revenue. No one was clutching their pearls over this.

yep.

This is pretty much raw, uncensored, money grubbing, greed.

Racists and pedophiles are bad for the bottom line because advertisers refuse to pay to have their ads next to such content. So unless we're willing to start paying to use YT so that YT can get off the ad supported model, then we'd better get used to moves like this one.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#277
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ramifications of this are profound, at least: - shake the money stick at them and they will dance (thanks, of all people, Nestle!) - they've admitted a serious problem exists that they were unwilling to deal with until external pressure forced them to (i.e. they can't be trusted to self regulate) - they've all but admitted they can't fix this in reasonable time, if at all This is the first time I can think of whe…

> - they've admitted a serious problem exists that they were unwilling to deal with until external pressure forced them to (i.e. they can't be trusted to self regulate) No, they didn't. The problem that Youtube is dealing with is advertisers leaving, not the actual comments. Dealing with the problem of advertisers leaving is different from dealing with those comments. It's unclear whether dealing with those comments…

> Firstly, kids on YouTube were NOT impacted by this

Unfortunately this is inaccurate. There are billions of daily adolescent YouTube users, some of whom entering puberty that were exposed and continue to be exposed to the recommendation algorithm that created this mess in the first place, and for periods running into hours every evening.

At such an early stage in development, it is absolutely the company's duty of care to ensure that a 5 year old is not being sent up a gradient of a recommendation system that is encouraging them (with the help of the comments just removed) to view people of their own age in a sexual manner. Not only were children impacted by this, but the mechanism that enables it remains active to this day.

I agree with the idea of allowing children outside, but as per my reply to your previous comment, not if that means spending all day in the back yard of the village creepy old man. Balance is required in every situation, and denial of the kind your comment is riddled with accomplishes nothing.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#278
post #102

I don't know how to feel about this. The concept of "commenting on web page" is old, but with so much people connected to internet, do we really need a comment section on all pages ? From my point of view, comments are most of the time irrelevant, especially on Youtube. HN would be the exception. Comments involves a lots of energy to moderate for no value most of the time. I know it's nice to have feedback when you c…

Comments and other forms of p2p interaction are generally added to create a community. People don't come back to a site/store/place if they don't get a sense of community. Comments are also generally very hard to moderate by an automated system (as also shown here). I like twitch's model where the channel owner and its moderators are responsible for the kind of community they want in that channel. There are diverse k…

Twitch's model is terrible. Streamers have literally been banned for their chat going to other streams and causing trouble. Think about this for a bit. That's making the streamer responsible for the viewers, but they have no actual ability to limit what their viewers do outside of their stream.

Twitch only works, because they only apply their rules randomly to some people and only sometimes.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#279
post #12

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…

SlateStarCodex's recent post on a similar topic was illuminating [1]

> It’s very easy to remove spam, bots, racial slurs, low-effort trolls, and abuse. I do it single-handedly on this blog’s 2000+ weekly comments. r/slatestarcodex’s volunteer team of six moderators did it every day on the CW Thread, and you can scroll through week after week of multiple-thousand-post culture war thread and see how thorough a job they did.

> But once you remove all those things, you’re left with people honestly and civilly arguing for their opinions. And that’s the scariest thing of all.

> Some people think society should tolerate pedophilia, are obsessed with this, and can rattle off a laundry list of studies that they say justify their opinion. Some people think police officers are enforcers of oppression and this makes them valid targets for violence. Some people think immigrants are destroying the cultural cohesion necessary for a free and prosperous country. Some people think transwomen are a tool of the patriarchy trying to appropriate female spaces. Some people think Charles Murray and The Bell Curve were right about everything. Some people think Islam represents an existential threat to the West. Some people think women are biologically less likely to be good at or interested in technology. Some people think men are biologically more violent and dangerous to children. Some people just really worry a lot about the Freemasons.

...

> The thing about an online comment section is that the guy who really likes pedophilia is going to start posting on every thread about sexual minorities “I’m glad those sexual minorities have their rights! Now it’s time to start arguing for pedophile rights!” followed by a ten thousand word manifesto. This person won’t use any racial slurs, won’t be a bot, and can probably reach the same standards of politeness and reasonable-soundingness as anyone else. Any fair moderation policy won’t provide the moderator with any excuse to delete him. But it will be very embarrassing for to New York Times to have anybody who visits their website see pro-pedophilia manifestos a bunch of the time.

> Every Twitter influencer who wants to profit off of outrage culture is going to be posting 24-7 about how the New York Times endorses pedophilia. Breitbart or some other group that doesn’t like the Times for some reason will publish article after article on New York Times‘ secret pro-pedophile agenda. Allowing any aspect of your brand to come anywhere near something unpopular and taboo is like a giant Christmas present for people who hate you, people who hate everybody and will take whatever targets of opportunity present themselves, and a thousand self-appointed moral crusaders and protectors of the public virtue. It doesn’t matter if taboo material makes up 1% of your comment section; it will inevitably make up 100% of what people hear about your comment section and then of what people think is in your comment section. Finally, it will make up 100% of what people associate with you and your brand. The Chinese Robber Fallacy is a harsh master; all you need is a tiny number of cringeworthy comments, and your political enemies, power-hungry opportunists, and 4channers just in it for the lulz can convince everyone that your entire brand is about being pro-pedophile, catering to the pedophilia demographic, and providing a platform for pedophile supporters. And if you ban the pedophiles, they’ll do the same thing for the next-most-offensive opinion in your comments, and then the next-most-offensive, until you’ve censored everything except “Our benevolent leadership really is doing a great job today, aren’t they?” and the comment section becomes a mockery of its original goal.

[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread...

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#280
post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a funny thing to say. I take it that you are against freedom of expression and speech? Because both of those will (hopefully) never be censored in the way you desire. Remember, nothing in those comments was illegal or even broke the actual rules of basically any online service. > The option available to them is clear, it's just not something anyone is willing to accept: connecting untrustworthy anonymous third…

This reply is needlessly personal, are you materially affected by this issue somehow? > Would you ban beaches as well, because creeps might watch others on a beach? No, but nor would I pretend people can shower and change without cubicles, or permit the nearby village to drown during the first storm because I deluded myself in the belief there was no need for a seawall. There is no rationality to be found in an absol…

This is true, as it doesn't need to be a matter regarding only the creeps. I was thinking sociopolitically, where adults related or not make the decision to use minors as props, whether for a thing as big as ad campaigns or as small as for social brownie points. As a grownup, if someone were to post my image without my express permission I could pull some legality in my favor. Children generally don't have the same resources, lacking their own guardianship. I'm just saying that until they can legally make such decisions for themselves, privacy should be the standard, to save them from embarrassment or abuse. We must all decide for ourselves what to share of ourselves.
Post reply on HN