Live data from Hacker News

YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

bloomberg.com

141–150 of 293 posts

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#141
post #83
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. The trending pages and suggested pages are filled based on google's algorithm that determines which video the user will like/ watch the most. That is the only fair way to determine trending and suggested videos.

How is that fair? Google's algorithm is biased towards what brings revenue for google. Content that isn't easily monetizable is suppressed, and content creators are punished for not conforming their content to what the algorithm wants.

I never said google should rank pages based on monetization value. I only said based on watch time and how well they predict a user will like that video. That is the only fair way imo. Youtube mostly ranks based off of watch time and machine learning to determine how well a user likes a video, monetization seems to only play a small part.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#142

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.

It never was.

Silicon Valley was/is filled with smart people who knew how to get on top.

They realized that using ideals to sell their cold hard reality was a great way to get useful minions to put their hearts and souls into projects.

The useful minions came and helped, and are now SHOCKED that the power hungry people they supported would do things related to power.

Most people can't even accept the open fact that the intelligence community helped fund many of these projects (see In-Q-Tel and others)

Now everyone is 'shocked' at them gathering data and sending it off to intelligence organizations. They could have 'never seen this coming'and 'how oh how did this happen?' - The only way those questions are asked is through massive indoctrination and double think.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#143
post #12
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that deplatform is the right idea here. Presumably, the videos will still be present and watchable. However, the algorithms used to sort and present videos must be seen as playing an editorial role, and that brings a different set of questions.

That is the equivalent of deplatforming in a lot of ways, especially on youtube where millions of videos are uploaded daily. If your videos are not suggested, and do not show up high in trending or search results, then they practically don't exist except from word of mouth and outside promotion.

>If your videos are not suggested, and do not show up high in trending or search results, then they practically don't exist except from word of mouth and outside promotion.

Sounds like how the Web should work. If you're searching for it, you can find it. Why should it be spoonfed to users based on the decisions of some algorithmic black box?

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#144
post #135
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're still free to make your own X It's becoming plainly clear that isn't the case. Liveleak was recently banned in Australia and NZ. Gab extension Dissenter has been banned from both chrome and Firefox app stores despite it self-censoring far more than twitter. Paypal, Stripe and Patreon all deplatform people based on words they have said. I don't agree in the slightest with conservative or far right thought but…

Any content creator takes certain risks when they choose to be a sharecropper on someone else's platform. Websites being banned in Country X have no impact on my ability to spin up a home web server and publish whatever I want. If I reach a certain volume of users, and let the site become host to people fomenting hate or violence, there's a chance someone might look to take the site down. Depending on the type of web…

Sharecropper is a great paralell. A sharecropper has no rights to buy his own land, and is forced into a psudeo-slavery, getting all of the burdens and none of the rights to his labor. Sounds unethical.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#145
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deplatforming, blocking, label and dismissing as forms of dealing with `extremes`, is not only a bad solution, but only fuels those extremes - driving them into their own confirmation bubbles and onto more dangerous forms of outletting their opinions. What needs to happen is solid debate, constructivly listening and then disseminating and showing what they are wrong about and why, with proof. As for platforms, deplat…

> What needs to happen is solid debate, constructivly listening and then disseminating and showing what they are wrong about and why, with proof. And also the tougher part, actually being prepared to admit that they might be right about some parts of what they say, interspersed with the things you disagree with. That is what makes a conversation about it fruitful.

Yes, that may be the case that they are not totally wrong about all aspects of issues they raise, problem is how they present them and with debate those issues can be looked at and what is the root cause. Many issues are often the effect of some overlooked issue and sadly by dismissing the first layer for whatever reasons and not listening and disseminating what they say so it can be broken down and addressed fairly. Well alas that only fuels them into an extreme direction even more, isolating groups in society into political tribalism that ignores the issues thru dismissal of any message other political tribes may gravitate towards.

This sadly only widens the gap between the political tribes and fuels the extremist aspects on both sides.

But putting the right message across to encapsulate and ring true with both sides without biasing it towards one side or another is a very nuanced skill. Take climate change - people can argue one side or another all day long. But ask them - do you like clean water and air and you will find both sides agreeing. From their you can push thru what is needed on the back of that point over saying we are doing this to tackle climate change. Same result, just politicaly more easily absorbed and equally shifts away from the whole - well their not doing anything so why should we mentalities. If anything you shift that self serving mentality onto your side as they will then think about their air and water quality that they breath and drink as well as their families. You also moot the whole historical data when people will argue that during the dinosaur period it was warmer and other counter arguments to climate change as it is the here and nows air and water they breath. Also easy to point out that if you run a car engine in a closed garage that the air quality is not good for you - something anybody in denial will comprehend and have to accept.

But without listening and debating what they said, pulling it apart and getting to the root cause and addressing real issues in a way that all sides can accept. You just see the extremes growing wider and further apart and that is not healthy for either side.

Perhaps we should worry about "Social Change" more as the current approach is akin to sweeping under the carpet and pretending there's no dirt and how everything is rosey, even though the distorted landscape hints that it is not and that carpet over time will bulge and bulge if this direction is left unchecked.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#146
This seems like a re-implementation of television ratings and survey (Nielsen) methods. In this way, it's interesting how strategies on the commercial internet gravitate toward business models with a century of momentum (and student loans) behind them. Business chips away at the revolution.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most people ( and a lot of people on HN) really believe that online platforms should be able to suppress such unlawful videos. "Such unlawful videos." So basically, the government should be able to declare content "unlawful" and it's okay so long as public sentiment goes along with it? Basically, you've simply thrown out Free Speech. I can understand why someone would find the video of the shooting shocking. Personal…

Nowhere did I say Government should be able to throw out free speech. I am just acknowledging what I have observed. If you think my observations are incorrect, please feel free to go through the relevant HN threads (e.g, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19414591) You will find a lot of comments saying such censorship is needed. I agree with you that free speech is important, and I think this contradiction between free speech and society trying to prevent the spread of radicalisation is an important question of our times.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#148
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes it not an open marketplace? The very bias introduced by platform like YouTube which you seem to be defending? Is the average person so dumb that they cannot distinguish between "sound argument" vs "intimidate and disconcert"? If that's how you feel about the average person, why do you still favor democracy?

People aren't dumb, but I think people have poor information literacy skills, which is linked to the decline in liberal arts education in favor of the emphasis on STEM education. The lack of these skills leads to people being unable to distinguish between "sound argument" vs "intimidate and disconcert" (again, not related to their intelligence, this is a developed skill). https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10858.html…

So not dumb-dumb, but dumb for all intents and purposes of making decisions in a democracy? What's the difference? At the core of your argument is the idea that people in a democracy aren't able to do their singular duty: make a reasonable choice based on available information, so they need to be coddled and only fed information that is "fair", "fair" as determined by liberal arts majors I guess.

And if anti semitic arguments are so unfairly effective, why hasn't it won? All the major platforms have a lot of anti semitic speech that they haven't been able to filter out, and it's remarkably easy to find on the internet, so why hasn't it entranced the majority of non-liberal-arts majors? Why are the masses of average people calling for the removal of anti semitic content - an act built on a rejection of anti semitic ideas - instead of being enthralled by it?

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most people ( and a lot of people on HN) really believe that online platforms should be able to suppress such unlawful videos. "Such unlawful videos." So basically, the government should be able to declare content "unlawful" and it's okay so long as public sentiment goes along with it? Basically, you've simply thrown out Free Speech. I can understand why someone would find the video of the shooting shocking. Personal…

The Christchurch shooter had no more right of access to a privately-owned live-streaming platform with an audience in the millions than he had right of access to a broadcast TV network. Saying so (which I suspect is what OP intended) is not "throwing out Free Speech"

You can tease apart the right to say something with the right to have it signal-boosted along the way, and if you want to save Free Speech you're going to have to in case we throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this might actually be a good thing long run. Regulation forces decentralization until you reach the equilibrium where playing whack-a-mole ceases to be cost effective. If YT didn't have regulatory capture, the easy answer would be another YT clone startup. Now the solution is a protocol rather than a platform. The protocol can't be made illegal because it's not inherently against the law but if someone uploa…

With very few exceptions the web has flown from decentralised to centralised because centralised is an easier user experience and allows monetisation for content creators, decentralised does not (or at least hasn't so far). Plus, the people bitching about their content removed from youtube don't want to just be able to upload to youtube they want youtube's audience, they in fact think they're entitled to youtube's au…

they in fact think they're entitled to youtube's audience.

What they're objecting to, is that their audience continues to exist, and YouTube and other tech companies are throwing up barriers between them and their existing audience -- even to the point of refusing to process payments and otherwise doing things which look like possibly illegal collusion between companies.

YouTube has captured the mainstream of all vlog commentary across all society, but they insist that they can continue to act like they're just a niche tech player. It's no different than a company in 1985 that had owned 85% of all the TV stations and Newspapers in the US. At some point, media companies get too big and too dominant over human discourse. At some point, media companies can get big enough to become a threat to Free Speech.

Post reply on HN