221–230 of 293 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Honestly, it's pretty ridiculous that YouTube is being pressured to police the content on its platform. It's not "ridiculous", it's table stakes. If you ever run an open community, you'll find that bad actors are inevitable.
What are these bad actors doing that requires top-down censorship and marginalization?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Just like people got what they wished for when Voat was spawned from Reddit?
Voat isn't just what you get with no censorship. It's what you get when you're a new alternative to a large incumbent: you are populated almost 100% by people banned by the incumbent. Nobody else has a reason to join your platform. It's a phenomenon that makes it even harder to compete with an incumbent social network.
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.
Anecdotal experience: Most people discover most videos they watch through hyperlinks/word of mouth, not YT recommendations, and nothing is stopping you from self-hosting a video.
YT is not like a social network (which become quadratically more valuable, and exclusive, with their number of users). There's no walled garden, its consumed passively, and its competition is, in fact, a click away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
400 hours/minute is 24,000 minutes of video per minute, or 241,920,000 minutes of video per week. Assuming a human can review 8 hours of video per day, 5 days a week (too high, but not by much), and that YouTube engineers can create an algorithm that automatically marks 95% of video (probably low, 95% correct labelling is easy to get; 99% is usually necessary to outdo humans), then you would need 5,040 humans. Automa…
And multiple that by let's say 50K/year fully burdened cost per employee (assuming locating them in low-cost areas) and we've now added a minimum of $125 million per year in overhead for a service that already probably doesn't make much money.
Which is <1% of the revenue that YouTube generated last year? Still a meaningful number. But, not unmanageable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Suppressing Free Speech creates more radicalization. Most quantitative reviews on deplatforming and and other social moderation efforts have shown the opposite. Maybe in the long-term social view of the issue you're right but on a platform by platform basis this doesn't seem to be the case.
Most quantitative reviews on deplatforming and and other social moderation efforts have shown the opposite. If certain vile people were still on YouTube, then they could be demolished by argument. By deplatforming people off YouTube, you actually manage to give the bad people moral ammunition (the people you'd think the least likely to achieve that) and reduce the legitimacy of the platform. What's been accomplished…
If arguments actually demolished positions, we'd see a lot fewer fools, and their adherents.
People broadcasting outright lies don't care about arguments. They care about exposure. When they are deplatformed, they quantitatively lose exposure.
They get moral outrage, but it's hard to turn moral outrage into viewers... Especially when your views are unsympathetic.
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.
>How did we end up here? [...] systematic censorship and endless puritanical moral panic? The reason is advertising money is what funds Youtube. Ultimately, this means Google has to make sure their videos are mostly "advertiser-friendly" [0]. This unavoidable editorial tension is what the prior boycott incident (Adpocalypse[1]) was all about. >We badly need some new blood guiding tech development. It's not just a new…
I don't see how this is the case for YouTube, but not Facebook. Why are brands so concerned about association on one platform, yet not the other?
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.
> Having one company be the sole gatekeeper for the overwhelming majority of the web's video content is not a solution. I struggle with this line of thinking because it's not specific enough. YouTube doesn't act as a gatekeeper for most video content. You can upload almost anything you want as long as its not grotesque or copyrighted. What most people mean when they say YouTube acts as a gatekeeper is "will YouTube p…
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.
> Having one company be the sole gatekeeper for the overwhelming majority of the web's video content is not a solution. I struggle with this line of thinking because it's not specific enough. YouTube doesn't act as a gatekeeper for most video content. You can upload almost anything you want as long as its not grotesque or copyrighted. What most people mean when they say YouTube acts as a gatekeeper is "will YouTube p…
No, the beef is with YouTube. They could offer advertisers the option to pay more and only advertise on “high-quality” content, or pay less and advertise everywhere.
Make it a slider with example videos and let them select what they’re comfortable with.
Instead, they went with no choice and arbitrary demonetization cutoffs.
If P&G doesn’t like my shaky repair videos on niche products that nobody else has made, fine. But P&G shouldn’t dictate what’s worthy of advertising or not for every other advertiser AND publisher.
Please just give us the ability to blacklist channels. That’d increase usability by 10x for me.
AFAIK you can do that? Hit the menu on a video recommendation, "Not Interested" -> "Tell Us Why" -> "I'm not interested in this channel". IMO, though, blacklisting has been mostly proven to be insufficient. If you block, say, noted chud Sargon of Akkad, that doesn't mean that another half-dozen "Rationalist" "Thinkers" Who Just Happen To Be Chuds won't be recommended to you as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> best solution is to simply use actual humans Gee, how many humans might it take to review the >400 hours of video uploaded every minute? (source: https://www.tubefilter.com/2015/07/26/youtube-400-hours-cont... )
why are you falsely assuming it all needs to be reviewed? it only needs to be reviewed if it's flagged. each additional flag on the same vid should double the likelihood that the material is objectionable. The question is how much video is actually flagged, and what percentage of those reports are false? Even that's an easy problem to solve, because if the same accounts keep flagging clearly-not-objectionable content…
JudgeWapner: 8 days and -2 karma. Nice track record so far.
Edit: I got down voted for calling out a troll? Oy.