521–530 of 556 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've had good results sending messages to mailbox named "hn" in the "ycombinator" domain, in "com" TLD.
I’ve tried that for three weeks without a response.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
My best idea is containerized video platforms. A parent can pay for the service or host it themselves. You control who is on it. The place where this breaks down though is not everyone has friends and the world would no longer be the audience. As well, video hosting is expensive, not sure it is affordable in most countries. I don't think there is a great solution yet.
Lots of middle-class families in developing countries still buy (pirated) DVDs of Barney & Friends and similar family friendly shows for playback on their home theatre systems, for those moments when kids announce they are bored.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree! Since Hacker News could also potentially be such a way to disseminate bad information we should remove all comments here too. See the problem? That's basically what you're justifying.
There are logical stopping points on the way from "all comments should be allowed" to "no comments should be allowed." One such stopping point could be "no comments should be allowed on media with certain features that overwhelmingly tend to attract morally reprehensible comments." Another such stopping point could be "all comments should be allowed, except those which the community has decided have no merit." In fac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve tried that for three weeks without a response.
I would assume your email address is mistakenly flagged by anti-spam system, and proceed accordingly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you need only look as far back as the covington incident to see that 'real people' are hardly inhibited from vile and abusive behavior just as long as they believe themselves to be on the right side of the mob. this has been the case since time immemorial. in my admittedly anecdotal experience, fully anon communities are far more respectful & a have a better standard of decorum than communities with high standards of…
Not sure why this was flag killed. The Covington incident is a good example. A controversial event occurred and everyone from every 'side' was inflammatory and no one maintained civil standards. EDIT I guess flagging indicates part of the problem. Society is so busy screaming at ourselves that the only thing reasonable people think they can do is check out of controversial topics. EDIT Would any downvoters care to en…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would rather be in touch with and exposed to this rather than try to pretend it doesn’t exist. YT comments do more than just represent ideas that are out there. Sometimes they can serve as a means of disseminating harmful ideas. Just yesterday I was looking at some YT videos about the history of the Balkan peoples and languages, where the speakers were internationally recognized historians and linguists (and who…
> I couldn’t help but feel that two decades ago, people similarly believed things that were baseless, but they had less capability to disseminate those ideas to other people. Which people? Twenty years ago, people (by which I mean schoolteachers) baselessly believed that Columbus proved that the world was round rather than flat and disseminated that idea, and it was hard to disseminate the counter-idea of "no, actual…
I could not in good conscience say "the kids who die of preventable illness, their lives are worth it so antivax people can spread misinformation without consequence."
I could not in good conscience say "the Tutsi lives lost were worth protecting the Hutu rights to free speech."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's simply absurd for YouTube to manually moderate comments at the scale they currently operate. If you force them to do that, it won't be profitable, and you'll end up with YouTube blowing channels away because they can't afford to host them anyway.
Why? Why is it absurd? You are thinking at human scales, and that is understandable, but Google doesn't think at human scales and it's only "absurd" if you think that Google has the inalienable right to the smallest possible cost of goods sold, even if that means offloading their externalities onto everyone else. It is probably obvious that I do not. You shouldn't, either. At Google's scale, trained-but-unskilled wor…
They make money by not spending it when they can get the same outcome for free[1]. Also, Search and Adwords make money, YouTube is getting by[2] (relatively). Why should other divisions subsidize a loss-making YouTube? Some channels don't make enough money relative to number of comments to be financially viable (no matter how cheap the moderators are) - Google has simply outsourced this decision to individual channel owners.
1. Google user's do a lot of things for free already, e.g. Map POIs
2. My guess - they don't breakout YT's income/expenses in fincancial reports https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-sec-wants-to-know-why-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would assume your email address is mistakenly flagged by anti-spam system, and proceed accordingly.
This is me proceeding accordingly, short of making a bunch of email accounts on different services, which seems a bit shady.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Why is it absurd? You are thinking at human scales, and that is understandable, but Google doesn't think at human scales and it's only "absurd" if you think that Google has the inalienable right to the smallest possible cost of goods sold, even if that means offloading their externalities onto everyone else. It is probably obvious that I do not. You shouldn't, either. At Google's scale, trained-but-unskilled wor…
> And Google makes a lot of money. They make money by not spending it when they can get the same outcome for free[1]. Also, Search and Adwords make money, YouTube is getting by[2] (relatively). Why should other divisions subsidize a loss-making YouTube? Some channels don't make enough money relative to number of comments to be financially viable (no matter how cheap the moderators are) - Google has simply outsourced…
People matter more than corporations. Society matters more than corporations. I'm comfortable asserting that it would be better for Google to close YouTube down than to let an organ of growing central importance to society at large become what it's obviously starting to become; something less damaging than that neglectful caretakership can arise in its wake.
This is just idiotic. Rather than removing videos that creeps are into, or in any way addressing the situation where their platform is being used by creeps, they are just removing the evidence that creeps are there so we won't be able to embarrass them by pointing out the creeps using their platform to be perverted creeps. So the creeps will keep creeping on kids, and nobody will know except Youtube, since they have…
Just how would you solve this if you were in their position?
Why not say "you cannot view this video if you are over 18" unless the watcher is specifically added to a list of allowed viewers?
Why not require the watcher to enable a webcam & mic while watching videos containing children and create an algorithm to detect wanking?
There are lots of solutions.
relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2106/