YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#91

Post by Mirioron » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

enitihas wrote: post #87

keiferski wrote: post #19

Frankly, I hope YouTube (and Google in general) dramatically overdo it with the censorship, "curation", and deplatforming of "irresponsible" content, purely so that it forces an independent, non-corporate model to be developed. Having one company be the sole gatekeeper for the overwhelming majority of the web's video content is not a solution.

I don't think any new platform is going to be able to compete with YouTube at all with the current regulations. How will any new platform comply with new EU copyright laws, or remove unlawful videos as quickly as YouTube? (e.g the unfortunate New Zealand terrorist attack)

They won't. I suspect that that kind of regulatory capture is the point of these laws in the first place.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#92

Post by krapp » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

kzcqt wrote: post #90

krapp wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of other video streaming sites exist. Competition certainly isn't impossible, and competitors don't have to operate at Youtube's scale to be viable, assuming they target a niche demographic.

A competitor would need to operate at youtube's scale for it to be considered a serious competitor. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation, given that websites like Dailymotion and Vimeo exist, but no "youtube stars" use them.

Not every competitor has to be "serious" to be successful.

And what about Twitch? Plenty of "personality" driven content there.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#93

Post by Mirioron » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #88

kzcqt wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A site like youtube requires so much CPU/GPU power, storage capacity and bandwidth that it's highly unlikely that a new competitor[] will appear, and completely impossible to decentralise. []If we don't count the likes of Facebook, Microsoft, etc as competitors, since they would manage the site in the same way Google does.

Plenty of other video streaming sites exist. Competition certainly isn't impossible, and competitors don't have to operate at Youtube's scale to be viable, assuming they target a niche demographic.

But do those video streaming sites offer comparable quality to YouTube, while also giving away half of the ad revenue they receive? Because YouTube does that. If it didn't give away half of the ad revenue to creators then YouTube would probably never have become as big as it is now.

We know that YouTube has trouble making money with this type of criteria. What do you think is the chance that another company with far less economies of scale will somehow make it work better?

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#94

Post by golemotron » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

legohead wrote: post #27

These companies focusing so much on algorithms, when the best solution is to simply use actual humans. I've done a fair amount of work on trying to detect and deal with spammers, fraudulent activity and such. Nothing beats a human eye. My most successful approach has been to filter out the super obvious stuff, then send the rest to a queue that is kept an eye on by humans. A small staff can easily fight back against…

This is why it's great to have an ecosystem of many small players.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#95

Post by kzcqt » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #92

kzcqt wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A competitor would need to operate at youtube's scale for it to be considered a serious competitor. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation, given that websites like Dailymotion and Vimeo exist, but no "youtube stars" use them.

Not every competitor has to be "serious" to be successful. And what about Twitch? Plenty of "personality" driven content there.

Twitch is not a competitor of youtube. Twitch is specialised in live shows. They don't let you upload videos, and they delete old videos of past broadcasts pretty often.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#96

Post by enitihas » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

Mirioron wrote: post #91

enitihas wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think any new platform is going to be able to compete with YouTube at all with the current regulations. How will any new platform comply with new EU copyright laws, or remove unlawful videos as quickly as YouTube? (e.g the unfortunate New Zealand terrorist attack)

They won't. I suspect that that kind of regulatory capture is the point of these laws in the first place.

I don't think so. Most people ( and a lot of people on HN) really believe that online platforms should be able to suppress such unlawful videos. And it's not a completely unreasonable position.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#97

Post by krapp » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

Mirioron wrote: post #93

krapp wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of other video streaming sites exist. Competition certainly isn't impossible, and competitors don't have to operate at Youtube's scale to be viable, assuming they target a niche demographic.

But do those video streaming sites offer comparable quality to YouTube, while also giving away half of the ad revenue they receive? Because YouTube does that. If it didn't give away half of the ad revenue to creators then YouTube would probably never have become as big as it is now. We know that YouTube has trouble making money with this type of criteria. What do you think is the chance that another company with far…

Youtube is so capricious with demonetizing user content that it's become a meme, and content creators have to resort to merchandise and Patreon to survive. They're definitely not giving away anywhere near half of their ad revenue.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#98

Post by luckylion » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

legohead wrote: post #27

These companies focusing so much on algorithms, when the best solution is to simply use actual humans. I've done a fair amount of work on trying to detect and deal with spammers, fraudulent activity and such. Nothing beats a human eye. My most successful approach has been to filter out the super obvious stuff, then send the rest to a queue that is kept an eye on by humans. A small staff can easily fight back against…

> Nothing beats a human eye.

Well, thousands of videos sure beat a human eye.

Then you'll need lots and lots of people that watch those videos and make judgement calls, and there will be edge cases, and you will have to give people a chance to challenge those decisions, etc. For a forum with a few hundred posts a day, that's certainly an option. At Youtube's scale with hundreds of hours of video uploaded every minute of every day, I have my doubts.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#99

Post by krapp » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 4:37 PM UTC

kzcqt wrote: post #95

krapp wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every competitor has to be "serious" to be successful. And what about Twitch? Plenty of "personality" driven content there.

Twitch is not a competitor of youtube. Twitch is specialised in live shows. They don't let you upload videos, and they delete old videos of past broadcasts pretty often.

If user attention is split between Twitch and Youtube then they are a competitor. Same for Netflix. Same for Pornhub. Same for Vine when that was a thing.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#100

Post by topspin » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #44

AlexB138 wrote: post #21

What a dystopian nightmare the internet is turning into. Anything that isn't in line with "right thought" isn't Responsible and is therefore hidden away? How did we end up here? How did Silicon Valley go from a place focused on ideas and building the future to generating systematic censorship and endless puritanical moral panic? We badly need some new blood guiding tech development.

I'm starting to feel less and less concerned. The people are starting to revolt. All the YouTubers I follow are migrating to alternative platforms for both hosting and $. Even PewDiePie, long time biggest YouTuber, has put this weight into another platform and will only be doing his live streams on dlive, a streaming platform with a crypto currency tied to it. Very few are totally abandoning YouTube, but I think the…

"I'm starting to feel less and less concerned. The people are starting to revolt. All the YouTubers I follow are migrating to alternative platforms for both hosting and $."

Several streamers I watch have moved, or at least started posting their work to an alternative site. I've followed them to avoid Google/Youtube whenever possible.

Sorely needed competition has emerged.