421–430 of 556 posts
As nowadays no matter how carefully one chooses one's words or how innocent one's thoughts are about such matters, someone somewhere will misconstrue them and take offense.
Shame, but that's the way of the world these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that if the existing laws were followed, children shouldn't ever be seeing those comments unless their parents are insane and allowed them to...Don't give your young children a youtube account. Youtube can and should add blocking _ALL_ comments to the parental controls. If all of these services weren't being offered for completely free, you could require a credit card purchase to make an account and solve…
It's not risk to children reading them, it's promotion of pedophilia that is the problem. You don't just drive them into dark corners where you pretend they don't exist. You don't pretend they don't exist, but you don't let them normalize their conduct either. And that is absolutely what is happening with the previous approach.
As someone who was on the receiving end of attention from pedophiles as a child and who has spoken to many of their victims, you do not want these people isolated in their own communities. You want to know exactly who they are.
Letting them speak, which at least where I live is still their right, is NOT tolerance.
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…
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…
So it sounds as if YouTube content creators are now in the unenviable position where they need to actively moderate the comments section for videos featuring children, and if they don't do so to YouTube's satisfaction, they could have their entire channel nuked. Is that a problem? If a run a large forum and have moderators running subforum, they either moderate comments in their subforum to my satisfaction or I "nuke…
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…
They can, that's enough reason. It's their lawn, they can do whatever they want. If you invite me into your house and I start yelling like crazy (because I have the right to), if you don't like it you would suggest me to get out (gently or not). You will be right. Who am I to complain about what I can or cannot do in your house?
> freedom of expression
Why people always misinterpret what freedom of expression is? It does not apply to the comments section of Youtube. People are not entitled to be heard or to express whatever they want in Youtube comments.
The trigger for this was some big companies pulling ads. I suppose that in the context of "predatory and obscene" comments regarding children it's well understandable. The problem with that is what happens next time when the advertisers pull ads because there is something else they don't like? Eventually, it leads down to political correctness and self-censorship as there is always someone who gets offended, and even the possibility of getting kicked out of Youtube or the service losing ad revenue keeps everyone on their toes.
Further, disabling comments fails to address another issue: pictures and videos of children freely available on the internet. That cat is out of the bag for good. The technical response would be to have a separate (private or public) paedophile forums where they just link to Youtube videos and make comments on the videos. That's outside of Youtube's business and keeps BigCos from having bad PR but would still matter to any underage person shown on an internet video.
So the real enabler to this is the proliferation of user-published content. Especially when people seem to like to share stuff online, inevitably also with strangers, it is even conceptually pretty hard to limit the audience of that sort of material. Fighting that process is like the war on drugs: it will just claim casualties one after another, left and right, whereas nothing really changes. While trying to make things nice and clean for everyone, babies get thrown out with the bath water.
Dirt on internet is like a law of nature. There has always been dirt, sometimes more and sometimes less. While paedophilia is the true hot potato nobody really feels comfortable with, the other dirt is a valuable cross-section into the scale on which people are. Bad (Youtube) comments can be so revealing at times, and they really pull you out of your bubble.
I don't like the general process of eliminating dirt and trying to set a political correct and business-approved bar for quality because what remains after that is shallow reflections of actual persons and human psyche.
I don't know what Youtube should do either. The concept of brand companies disliking that their advertisements are shown next to offensive third-party comments is very much absurd in the first place, so how can you deal with that?
I can understand that companies want to whitelist or blacklist specific categories and channels where they want (or don't want) their ads but getting pissed by comments complete unrelated to the advertisements is where things get hard. That's like pulling ads from a magazine because the magazine happened to have pictures of children and a group of molesters happened to sit in a pub making predatory comments of those pictures next to the advertisement. What has previously been unimaginable apparently turns into reality when you do it on the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is absolutely not the case. Reach is about broadcast. There are plenty of non-authoritarian ways to reduce reach. The most obvious one is to make people pay for it (like they do on Facebook). Community moderation is another, and trust metrics is yet another. All have tradeoffs, but - since you are nitpicking here - it isn't a logical and unavoidable conclusion that this has to be a decision about allowed access.
Yes, let's institute zones of allowed speech. While we're at it, if you'd like to protest the White House, let's make it so that you're allowed to do so but your protest must fit within a 9' by 9' space that must be a minimum of 500 feet from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. No carried signs may extend above 8' from the floor and your total volume must remain below 90dB. Make sure you optimize your protest space to have the…
Everyone in the world has an earpiece which they must wear at all times. Everyone has a microphone which automatically broadcasts everything they say to everyone's earpiece. You can't take your earpiece off, as that would reduce someone else's ability to speak freely to you.
There are downsides to allowing everyone a global platform.
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.
It wouldn't be a huge issue if these kind of comments would stay constrained in the digital realm.
But as people see that the tone and hardline position is shared by a lot of other people, they feel empowered and validated, so that that behavior starts rippling in the "real" world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 c…
> 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. You are talking about a different issue. > At such an early stage in development, it is absolutely the company's duty of care to e…
It is the company's duty of care for the same reason that
- it is the city's duty of care if the child goes outside and falls down an unmaintained manhole
- it is the school's duty of care if a fire extinguisher malfunctions and kills the child
- it is the driver's duty of care if the child crosses the road and gets struck on a green crossing
In all these cases, the entities assume a certain privilege to operate due to the trust placed in them that enables the freedom for the child to go outside whatsoever. If that duty does not exist, then there is no trust the child can safely leave home unattended. In effect what you're arguing for is total control from the parent -- a much worse outcome for a child than self-moderation on behalf of the trusted entities they would otherwise have had the freedom to interact with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't about shitposting on YouTube videos, this is about pedos time stamping videos of kids in sexualized positions. Mostly in response to this video [1] (with a warning that it's pretty uncomfortable and gross). 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O13G5A5w5P0
that truly was uncomfortable to watch, did not finish. Amazing how the human mind works that such a system came about but the algorithm that is built into youtube itself needs to be questioned. so what solution is there, preventing any content with children under a certain age? blocking any comment that features a link? can youtube detect use of vpn? once you leave certain countries I am not sure it can be policed.
I don't think there is a great solution yet.