321–330 of 556 posts
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…
I can't think of having ever seen a comment on YouTube that made the commenting feature seem worthwhile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's a classic question of the world not being black and white. Either people accept this greyness and work within it to produce the most desirable result possible, or fruitlessly wonder why nobody else is able to see what apparently is so patently visible to your eyes only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were there any valuable comments that weren't root-level (or that wouldn't have been made as root-level comments if it were impossible to reply to comments)? I ask because I feel like you're describing the same sort of system I am in my sibling reply below: > But really, if content creators want to get "feedback", they just need a thing that's essentially like email—a separate private channel between them and each au…
Yeah, Jeff Skiles's comment got a lot of replies and he replied to some of them. This spontaneous AMA thing was definitely valuable, made the guy even more approachable! Cramming everything into one flat thread has already been done in phpbb and works for small threads but big threads get into issues when you are not interested in every part of the discussion but only some.
1. the creator has their own private forum (e.g. a Discord group);
2. you, as a potenial commenter, can easily join said group as a guest, with your YouTube credentials used to identify you in the group;
3. or you can also just post "into" the group without joining it, using the form below the video;
4. the community itself can be deputized to moderate such comments;
5. the community can have all sorts of thought-provoking discussions in response to such comments, visible to one-another in the (private) group;
6. the content-creator would have an easy interface to "highlight" any given thread/subtree of conversation from the group, making it into a visible comment thread appearing below the video.
Essentially, this proposal would just take each YouTube channel, and make its comments section into a private forum under the content-creator's control; and then, separately, make the "comments section" below the video into a sort of moderated "best of" version of that forum's discussion of the given post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Youtubes ad revenue were negligible to the value proposition of the platform they would not be profitable and they would not give away the service for free. > I just don't see how you get 24/7, 4k streaming without it being monetised by a centralized corp For popular video, the cost center is bandwidth, not storage. In that case, webtorrent and ipfs are both capable answers - as long as you can overcome the initia…
Check out DTube ( https://d.tube/ ) - it's effectively a decentralized YouTube built on IPFS. It's built on Steem to incentivize video uploading/engagement ( https://about.d.tube/ )
1) Steem in general is a mess. Its controlled by the parent company, you cannot mine it - the only way to generate it is on their content platforms. Its only a cryptocurrency insofar as it has public transaction records, without distributed proofing the integrity of the blockchain is faith in Steemit. Likewise, the value of the currency can solely be attributed to how the public perceives the value of a Steem token. Thats like every crypto, but most cryptos are trusted by their distribution of work, time, space, or stake. For Steem, its about the popularity of Steemit websites.
2) Using IPFS for the video hosting is what I'm advocating for but nothing addresses the second. D.tube simply centralizes on the site and depends on the valuation of the cryptocurrency keeping the lights on when guaranteeing an available seed of every video on the site. If you host your own d.tube instance, you would need to seed every video uploaded lest risk videos being lost.
Additionally, to my knowledge, getting money out of Steem is quite challenging since there is no corporate business account on Steemits end. You have to use third party wallets and exchanges to sell Steem. Good luck trying to onboard normal people into something like that.
That all being said I don't think D.tube is bad. Its a very novel approach to trying to bootstrap a video site by trying to incentivize participation with a deterministic token given out on popularity. But that depends on constant, sufficient growth to keep the hype going so the token isn't arbitraged down to nothing in value. Its only worth anything for its scarcity determinism, which isn't worth much in an endless sea of cryptocurrencies.
Have their been any studies on comment quality at free vs subscribed (for money) sites? Perhaps Patreon should just add comments and subscribers can comment there. Content creators could link to it and it would be read-only unless you pay. Most edgelords aren't going to pay to play.
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…
I can't think of having ever seen a comment on YouTube that made the commenting feature seem worthwhile.
Here are two examples I came across a few minutes ago:
> Grady, to gain a variable flow control, could you use the horizontal angle of a folder weir? If the point of the folded weir was say 5 degrees higher than the outer sides, a slow flowing river would only flow over the lowest parts of the crest. As the flow increased, more of the weir's crest is used by the water, This would effectively self regulate the weir's geometry.
response:
> Such structures exist and they're called compound weirs. These structures come in various cross-section geometries which can be tailored to provide better control of water levels under various discharge rates. The structures discussed with a fixed crest height, also have a fixed relationship between the upstream water level and discharge capacity.
I think that's an interesting exchange, don't you? Nobody is tossing around profanities, neither claimed the earth is flat, called the other a 12 year old, or anything like that. Insightful and constructive comments are common on decent channels, and non-existent on trash channels. That's not really a reflection of how youtube works, but probably a symtom of something more fundamental about human nature.
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…
It's kind of like deinstitutionalization. When deinstitutionalization happened, lots of chronically mentally ill people started wandering the streets behaving erratically. You run into these people in cities--I've encountered one who loudly narrates her paranoid delusions about the people around her. Sometimes late at night you see people committing vandalism or doing drugs. I think it's a better idea to give people…
a) people are more likely to have gumption to be negative in the absence of social cues of another person in their presence (global effect, whether or not user is mentally ill)
b) those motivated and possessing time to post are more likely to be suffering from issues (where those not mentally ill may just not engage because they have other things going on in life)
c) unlike the physical space where filters exist, you're often exposed to these people when navigating to entirely innocuous content (e.g. a kids video).
d) way way easier to find people with same or adjacent point of view on internet, reinforcing beliefs and potentially driving person further to extremes
Problem needs to be addressed from multiple fronts - as you say, more control for end users to tweak their experience (top down), alongside better platform-level filtering (bottom up), along with all the helpful designs therein like good defaults.
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…
This is completely hypocritical and idiotic. Youtube comments have been famous for a decade for being among the worst of the worst content on the web, and now they're going to try to just foist that cancer on channel owners and wash their hands of it? Are you kidding? Is this a joke?
Is nobody in charge at Google anymore? Are they just going to keep endlessly reacting to whatever media story got the most attention last week instead of actually trying to build something new?
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…
I might be in the minority here but I enjoy the low quality youtube comments. Most people dismiss them as cancer but the reality is a lot of people think in patterns that drive these comments. I would rather be in touch with and exposed to this rather than try to pretend it doesn’t exist. It won’t ever go away, it will just be hidden.