Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

bbc.co.uk

461–470 of 556 posts

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube comments is the only real democratic and open dialog on the web. Everything else is one's or another's ideas for "right" dialog imposed.

That’s pretty obviously false. I think you mean “anarchic”. Democracy would allow the majority’s idea for “right” dialogue and would censor minority ideas. Which is what moderation does.

>That’s pretty obviously false. I think you mean “anarchic”

Democratic. The people ("demos") control the dialogue and have equal voice.

As in this dictionary definition: (3): relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people - democratic art - democratic education (4): favoring social equality - not snobbish

I'm also referring to the original meaning of the word and practice in ancient Athens when it came to deciding, where every participating citizen could be heard [1].

What you describe (suppressing the minority etc) is about lawmaking and decisions (e.g. the democratic , which is not part of the YouTube dialogue. Users don't decide what's to be done. Nobody is surpassed in YouTube comments, minority or not -- they just get downvotes and negative counter-comments, but they can still write and have their comments shown.

[1] The innovation was that it was not a king, tyrant, or group of rulers, but the whole citizen community (even if restricted to slaves/women which was the baseline at the time -- not to mention also for 2.5 millennia later) themselves openly debating and voting.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that there's an element of validation and indoctrination that is a serious concern here. In addition to an overall significant lowering of the discourse around things by allowing garbage quality trolls and other horrible comments, and in addition to bullying, aggressive behavior, stalking, and other things that are broadly considered unpleasant, this kind of behavior breeds more of this behavior. Consider som…

This is one of the reasons I think anonymity on the Internet is a bad thing. Not that I am saying it should be banned, but it should not be the norm. Much of the toxicity simply would not happen, could be prosecuted, or could be filtered if a "real person" attribute was widely available.

Toxicity is a non issue compared the the huge disadvantage of losing anonymity. In fact you're feeding the trolls by giving them hints of ethnicity, gender, etc.

A real name policy also wouldn't actually address the actual problem. Toxic behavior is possible because on the internet you can write angry comments to a person on the other side of the globe and then forget about that person tomorrow. If that person does come back tomorrow then it doesn't matter if they are called "hahaurmom" or "Jonathan Willis".

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#463
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…

I can't think of having ever seen a comment on YouTube that made the commenting feature seem worthwhile.

I've found that comment quality is pretty reliably proportional to the specificity of the audience niche. I also have the hunch that any meaningful algorithmic comment moderation would have to approach being a general be AI. Might be room for advancement in machine assisted moderation though.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just how would you solve this if you were in their position?

I would start by closing all the accounts that made creep comments on children's videos, or showed a pattern of viewing videos that are obviously intended for that audience, and banning them from creating other accounts (hard to enforce, but at least they can hold that in their pocket if one of these creeps shows up on their radar again), and then forwarding their information to law enforcement. Lots, or almost all p…

> I would start by closing all the accounts that made creep comments on children's videos, or showed a pattern of viewing videos that are obviously intended for that audience, and banning them from creating other accounts

While banning accounts that post multiple comments with questionable timestamps may be a somewhat reasonable way to proceed, just banning people based on the pattern of viewing they exhibit will lead to an unacceptably-large percentage of false positives. Just think back how many times you're feed got filled up with videos of a certain topic because youtube misclassified you somehow. The issue is further exasperated when the same account is used by multiple people (a family computer in some living room, an adults phone used as a pacifier, and other situations in which viewing patterns get muddled).

Just permanently banning people on patterns alone is a very bad idea.

>(hard to enforce, but at least they can hold that in their pocket if one of these creeps shows up on their radar again), and then forwarding their information to law enforcement. Lots, or almost all probably, of those accounts can be linked to a real person (either by the username or their IP). If police knock on some doors a lot of these guys are going to be too stupid to lawyer up and will probably confess to much worse things or agree to hand their laptop over for inspection after a couple of questions.

The thing is, what they're doing, while sickening, is not illegal. I strongly doubt law enforcement would be interested in getting flooded with reports of non-crimes that have a high false positive rate. I also doubt people will take kindly to being misreported to the police.

I personally believe that the issue of people creeping off videos can't be addressed without causing unacceptable (and sometimes significant) collateral damage to others. I think the damage done from banning comments on videos of children will far outweigh the damage caused by those comments themselves.

People should evaluate this issue rationally and not overreact.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#466
post #9

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…

:o

First time I’ve actually seen "[sic]" being used

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#467
post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"public that demands blood on everything" public = Small, vocal minority.

Not even the public, it's the small group of news outlets which are trying to discredit youtube as a source of news and entertainment. Youtube is a direct competitor to cable news and the networks that host them, so being able to say, "Look! There's bad stuff that they didn't know about!" is a great way to push that narrative and reclaim some advertising dollars. This isn't even in retaliation to the Verge and the ot…

This sort of stuff and the fake news hysteria in general seem like an attempt to discredit all alternative media sources, and the internet/blogging/free speech in general. For them, competing with thousands of people writing/making videos for free means their business model doesn't work any more.

Fact is, they won't stop with these articles and attack pieces and hysteria till the internet is basically like cable TV.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that there's an element of validation and indoctrination that is a serious concern here. In addition to an overall significant lowering of the discourse around things by allowing garbage quality trolls and other horrible comments, and in addition to bullying, aggressive behavior, stalking, and other things that are broadly considered unpleasant, this kind of behavior breeds more of this behavior. Consider som…

I think there is no evidence of the mechanisms you describe. That could have been a text written about books shortly after Gutenberg. The kids will flee the garden eventually anyway and "allowable discourse" is quite subjective. You will never create a child-proof youtube. Those kids will eclipse your abilities and understanding at some point. It would be better to create a separate platform

Looks to me like you guys are talking past one another.

disillusioned is taking the position of The Internet. If we allow these things, things will just continue to get worse and worse. Standards exist for a reason, Gresham's Law, and the rest of it. (Including some wonderful pleas for civility and kindness that I completely agree with)

raxxorrax is taking the position of The Human Species. We have survived and evolved because we are a wild, aggressive, curious species. Whatever boundaries there are, we will push them as hard as we can. Life will find a way.

Both of you folks are correct. This is the crux of the problem with technologies like YouTube (or books, for that matter). If YouTube is a publisher, then it has an opinion, a political position, standards for what it thinks is civil, and so forth. That's great, but there's no freaking way in hell I'm going to agree to having a handful of companies decide that kind of thing for the entire planet. The idea alone is insane. I just read yesterday about people getting warnings from Twitter from things they posted 5, 6 years ago that somebody in a dictatorship found offensive last week. It's ludicrous.

If, however, they're a public forum, then they should just shut up and stop looking at the things that appear on their site. The public forum -- books -- require chaos, disorder, and evolutionary pressure. Can't fight mother nature. Life will evolve.

But they can't do that, can they? Because they're monetizing all of that content. So they have to keep close track of each little piece of everything.

Now they're stuck.

They want to have it both ways, and we feeble-minded folks watching this spectacle end up choosing one or the other. It's a sucker's game, and no matter which side we choose, it doesn't work. That's because the premise is broken. BigTech wants to be two things at the same time. Picking one of those things and arguing with folks who pick the other one just plays into their schtick and keeps the gravy train rolling along.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is no evidence of the mechanisms you describe. That could have been a text written about books shortly after Gutenberg. The kids will flee the garden eventually anyway and "allowable discourse" is quite subjective. You will never create a child-proof youtube. Those kids will eclipse your abilities and understanding at some point. It would be better to create a separate platform

> I think there is no evidence of the mechanisms you describe. Which part? If we are talking about this part: >> I think that there's an element of validation and indoctrination that is a serious concern here. Then I think there is evidence of that being true. Take for example “incels”. They gather in online forums where they construct a worldview built entirely on misogyny, entitlement and hate. The ideas they are s…

You are accusing an entire group of people of an action that you deem unacceptable. That is rather discriminatory of you.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is no evidence of the mechanisms you describe. That could have been a text written about books shortly after Gutenberg. The kids will flee the garden eventually anyway and "allowable discourse" is quite subjective. You will never create a child-proof youtube. Those kids will eclipse your abilities and understanding at some point. It would be better to create a separate platform

don't we have decades of evidence from online communities showing that? From usenet to reddit, many communities that tolerate abusive conduct degenerate, as the "bad behaviour" is normalized and becomes accepted. The fact that you can't create a child-proof YT doesn't mean you shouldn't strive to keep negative behaviour at bay.

> don't we have decades of evidence from online communities showing that?

In my experience the community changes as a whole, but not the individual actors. Once a community tips the member base changes. People displeased with the behavior leave and people attracted to it join.

Post reply on HN