Yeah, we'll see how well that goes. I can't help but suspect that YouTube's definition of "quality" and mine are not quite the same.
YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content
171–180 of 293 posts
Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content
#172Earlier 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.
It really wouldn't. YT makes a big deal about vanity metrics like "10,000 hours of video uploaded per hour" (or something like that), but the 80-20 rule still applies. A giant chunk of uploaded content is never even watched.
A site for YouTube videos that have never been watched before: http://www.petittube.com/
Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
They give an example in the article of Logan Paul's YouTube channel being troubling. Apparently his fans enjoy his videos as measured by watch time, the like button, views, and subscribers, but his content also lacks a certain jena se qua that Google calls "quality". The impulse to tell people what the quality of their entertainment is strikes me as dystopian and deeply authoritarian. In addition, it's also patronizi…
It seems a bit contradictory to me, though, that here we are on a forum whose entire premise is aggressive curation of "quality," talking about a video streaming platform considered by many here to be a vapid cesspool of inane nonsense and clickbait wanting to improve the quality of what its users see, and the immediate reaction is to cry censorship, and wonder whether "quality" even means anything, rather than say "…
Everything has a place. I might it find it odd if the technical library where I work started carrying the National Enquirer. Yet, that publication is perfectly appropriate where people expect entertainment magazines.
YouTube was intended as a place for people to share their videos. Logan Paul and others who create and share videos are using YouTube for its intended purpose and it's perverse for YouTube to try and figure out how to stop them from doing what their service was built to enable.
I think there should be a place for high quality curated content and a place for people to share their videos regardless of content.
YouTube is, of course, free to make whatever curation decisions they like just like I'm free to complain about them. This would be like if hacker news claimed to be a place for tech news but also banned all submissions from authors or views they didn't like, even if that content was high quality tech news.
Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content
#174There are so many simple rules that would improve their recommended content. Examples:
1. Lower rank for clickbait titles
2. Lower rank for listicle / compilation / clip videos
3. Delist listicle / compilation videos with stolen content (most of them)
4. Lower rank for clickbait thumbnails
5. Lower rank for YT drama videos
6. Increased rank for 100% original videos
Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content
#175Yeah, we'll see how well that goes. I can't help but suspect that YouTube's definition of "quality" and mine are not quite the same.
YouTube's (and Google's) management has been very openly left-leaning, so it's not a stretch to imagine that "quality" as defined by their editors will also be left-leaning or at least not right-leaning... so, yeah.
Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content
#176There are so many simple rules that would improve their recommended content. Examples: 1. Lower rank for clickbait titles 2. Lower rank for listicle / compilation / clip videos 3. Delist listicle / compilation videos with stolen content (most of them) 4. Lower rank for clickbait thumbnails 5. Lower rank for YT drama videos 6. Increased rank for 100% original videos
But then how would virtually every YouTuber make a living? You’ve described all of their tricks :)
Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
The internet has operated that way forever. Most hosts haven't allowed porn since the beginning of time. You're still free to make your own video hosting website if you'd like. Liveleak still exists.
> 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…
[flagged]
Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>so why hasn't it entranced the majority of non-liberal-arts majors?
Perhaps a possible explanation is that such speech is already disallowed on many popular networks - Reddit, Twitter or Facebook, for instance. This leads to a secondary effect in which people who have never actually seen antisemitic arguments believe (rightly) that it's something they wouldn't have wanted to see anyway, so they are fine getting rid of it. That's not a great reason on their part, but we can't say that the way antisemitism proliferates has not itself met counter-balancing forces since Sartre wrote the the section GP quoted.
In a similar way, antisemitism is very healthy on forums that do not block it; if you open any thread on 4chan's /pol/ board you'll find many instances of "unironic" antisemitic content, and even if you go to other boards like /g/ or /int/ you'll find plenty of "ironic" antisemitism.
I'd be cautious of saying that antisemitism does not have the ability to grip people anywhere, though; a recent issue was the proliferation of antisemitic ideas on a popular meme subreddit[0] and the circulation of extremely popular antisemitic myths and propaganda[1] - the support shown for this conspiracy theory shown through posts and upvotes on those posts serves to show this is not as marginal of an opinion.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/virginvschad/comments/bb1es2/the_vi...
[1] This is a debunking of the conspiracy theory rather than the conspiracy theory itself since I don't want to drive people to the original video, though to view it you can check the description of the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o3pkoZyYRA
Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content
#179Frankly, 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)
1) below a certain scale, they don't have to comply
2) if they make a good faith effort, at whatever level of expertise and resources they have, I belive they will be within the law. I dont think there is any specific legal requirement to do machine learning or any other specific implementation of content ID.
I'd start with checksums, whatever level of flagging by hand I could afford, and go from there.
As you scale you'll attract the attention of rights holders and need to spend more. But I would hope the courts would accept a good faith effort.
Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would actually be glad if some of the more extreme and irresponsible opinions are deplatformed. It cant be argued that Youtube is expected to platform all range of opinions. There is however a strong likelihood of this being exploited by Youtube for its own purposes.
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 you are discounting are the bad faith actors that use networks provided by YouTube, FB, Twitter etc to disseminate their message. I think a lot of us believe in marketplace of ideas where bad ideas are disproven and people update their beliefs and move on. But we overlook those who are so driven by ideology/emotions that they spread false data willingly to push their agenda.
They can recruit like minded and impressionable (often young) people and build nation wide movements if left unchecked. Most of us don't have the time to go and verify every piece of information for ourselves. We are relying instead on our notion of the normalized opinions. This is informed by our cultural norms and media narratives etc. The bad faith actors want to push this moving window of opinion to their end through a constant barrage of gas lighting, straw manning and general FUD. I think rational discourse does not work in such situations.
2 + 2 = 5 does not cleanly translate into our political situation because I think a lot of is driven by more basic emotions (for instance hating a particular group of people intrinsically) rather than something objective like this particular equation. There might be ways of having dialogue even in such situations. But I believe it is not through algorithmically boosted viral videos on YouTube.