YouTube’s LGBTQ Problem Is a Business-Model Problem • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube’s LGBTQ Problem Is a Business-Model Problem

#11

Post by vorticalbox » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 9:37 PM UTC

mushufasa wrote: post #9

monocasa wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't. LGBTQ is a category that gets special cased in order to block homophobic creators. But it mainly just blocks pro-LGBTQ creators because the homophobic creators are more likely to speak in dog whistles that the blocking algorithms don't understand, whereas the pro-LGBTQ creators speak frankly and quote homophobic speech in order to comment on it.

If this is the case, that's tragic in the dramatic sense -- LGBT groups fighting algorithms that are protecting them, because they can't appreciate the unseen danger prevented. I also imagine the 'algorithms' are a moving target, which makes me think this should be settled quickly if not dismissed, as Google tries to correct this. But certainly a lawsuit should bump this up the engineering priority list.

I hope that is a the case of it being sorted quickly though I am unsure they can teach intent well enough to actually make this any better.

Re: YouTube’s LGBTQ Problem Is a Business-Model Problem

#12

Post by jakelazaroff » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 9:37 PM UTC

mushufasa wrote: post #9

monocasa wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't. LGBTQ is a category that gets special cased in order to block homophobic creators. But it mainly just blocks pro-LGBTQ creators because the homophobic creators are more likely to speak in dog whistles that the blocking algorithms don't understand, whereas the pro-LGBTQ creators speak frankly and quote homophobic speech in order to comment on it.

If this is the case, that's tragic in the dramatic sense -- LGBT groups fighting algorithms that are protecting them, because they can't appreciate the unseen danger prevented. I also imagine the 'algorithms' are a moving target, which makes me think this should be settled quickly if not dismissed, as Google tries to correct this. But certainly a lawsuit should bump this up the engineering priority list.

> If this is the case, that's tragic in the dramatic sense -- LGBT groups fighting algorithms that are protecting them, because they can't appreciate the unseen danger prevented.

I don't think the article or GP are saying this. The algorithms, while ostensibly well-intentioned, are actually having the opposite effect — stifling the speech of the LGBTQ+ community while allowing their harassers to operate mostly unchecked.

Re: YouTube’s LGBTQ Problem Is a Business-Model Problem

#13

Post by jacksnipe » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 9:38 PM UTC

mushufasa wrote: post #9

monocasa wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't. LGBTQ is a category that gets special cased in order to block homophobic creators. But it mainly just blocks pro-LGBTQ creators because the homophobic creators are more likely to speak in dog whistles that the blocking algorithms don't understand, whereas the pro-LGBTQ creators speak frankly and quote homophobic speech in order to comment on it.

If this is the case, that's tragic in the dramatic sense -- LGBT groups fighting algorithms that are protecting them, because they can't appreciate the unseen danger prevented. I also imagine the 'algorithms' are a moving target, which makes me think this should be settled quickly if not dismissed, as Google tries to correct this. But certainly a lawsuit should bump this up the engineering priority list.

Well, the algorithms simply don't work if they're flagging too many false positives.

Re: YouTube’s LGBTQ Problem Is a Business-Model Problem

#14

Post by mushufasa » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 9:38 PM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #8

One of the big problems with machine learning algorithms at this time is that they have a hard time figuring out intent. A lot of the terms used by the LGBTQ community, have been used by homophobic people as slurs. Yes it is great that the community is reclaiming those words, but current ML tech has no way of distinguishing when those terms are being used by the community in a respectful manner from where they are us…

What about crowdsourcing efforts? Why are user flags insufficient?

Why can't there be a balance between full automation and human review, such as an appeal system or 'whitelist' program? Are the economics really the obstacle, or is it more of a corporate stance towards not adjudicating subjective controversies to avoid liability under the Communications Decency Act Section 230?

Re: YouTube’s LGBTQ Problem Is a Business-Model Problem

#15

Post by Animats » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 9:39 PM UTC

Arguing that there's a right to get ad revenue from your videos is a big stretch. Has that ever come up before in the history of free speech? Classic issues are more like "can we make the newspaper run our ad if we pay the regular rates?"

Google recently won a lawsuit which complained YouTube was putting conservative content in "restricted" mode.[1] Others complain Google is not doing enough to avoid shoving too many extreme videos at people.[2]

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-youtube-c...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/11/world/americas/youtube-br...

Re: YouTube’s LGBTQ Problem Is a Business-Model Problem

#16

Post by Mirioron » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 9:39 PM UTC

The thing is that a lot of us saw this coming. Whenever people complain about how YouTube needs to remove X type of content, they also need to realize that if YouTube actually starts policing that type of content then there will be false positives. Since YouTube will do it algorithmically, the chance that there will be collateral damage is much higher and YouTube takes a long time to reverse decisions they've already made.

For example, YouTube doesn't want violent content. Just having the word "kill" in your title can get the content demonetized, even if the content is about a video game and properly categorized as such. It's been this way for years.

Re: YouTube’s LGBTQ Problem Is a Business-Model Problem

#17

Post by lordCarbonFiber » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 9:40 PM UTC

mushufasa wrote: post #14

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #8

One of the big problems with machine learning algorithms at this time is that they have a hard time figuring out intent. A lot of the terms used by the LGBTQ community, have been used by homophobic people as slurs. Yes it is great that the community is reclaiming those words, but current ML tech has no way of distinguishing when those terms are being used by the community in a respectful manner from where they are us…

What about crowdsourcing efforts? Why are user flags insufficient? Why can't there be a balance between full automation and human review, such as an appeal system or 'whitelist' program? Are the economics really the obstacle, or is it more of a corporate stance towards not adjudicating subjective controversies to avoid liability under the Communications Decency Act Section 230?

The problem with crowd sourcing, especially in the LGBT space, is it's really vulnerable to brigading. Give particularly bored and hatful people a bat to shut down channels they don't like and things go south fast.

Re: YouTube’s LGBTQ Problem Is a Business-Model Problem

#18

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

mushufasa wrote: post #14

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #8

One of the big problems with machine learning algorithms at this time is that they have a hard time figuring out intent. A lot of the terms used by the LGBTQ community, have been used by homophobic people as slurs. Yes it is great that the community is reclaiming those words, but current ML tech has no way of distinguishing when those terms are being used by the community in a respectful manner from where they are us…

What about crowdsourcing efforts? Why are user flags insufficient? Why can't there be a balance between full automation and human review, such as an appeal system or 'whitelist' program? Are the economics really the obstacle, or is it more of a corporate stance towards not adjudicating subjective controversies to avoid liability under the Communications Decency Act Section 230?

>What about crowdsourcing efforts? Why are user flags insufficient?

Because this will devolve into different groups flagging their opponents' videos. This will especially hurt the voices of minorities and other vulnerable populations.

Re: YouTube’s LGBTQ Problem Is a Business-Model Problem

#19

Post by big_chungus » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #8

One of the big problems with machine learning algorithms at this time is that they have a hard time figuring out intent. A lot of the terms used by the LGBTQ community, have been used by homophobic people as slurs. Yes it is great that the community is reclaiming those words, but current ML tech has no way of distinguishing when those terms are being used by the community in a respectful manner from where they are us…

> doing this really changes the economics of the platform

Not to mention that moderating this kind of stuff can seriously mess you up: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/19/18681845/facebook-moderat...

You end up looking at not just mean words but CP, seriously gory stuff, fringe sexual deviancy, and more. Do we really want to do this to moderators?

Re: YouTube’s LGBTQ Problem Is a Business-Model Problem

#20

Post by fareesh » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 9:54 PM UTC

What if monetized videos can't be viewed without spending "ad bucks"?

To earn "ad bucks", you have to watch an ad. The ad watching takes place in a dedicated ads section of the site, completely independent of all videos.

The vast majority of monetized videos would cost 1 ad buck, so watch one ad. The ad watching is just a giant "watch ad" button. The algorithm goes through all all the info about me and shows me a relevant ad, just like it does already.

If you want to opt out of ad bucks, you can just subscribe to that channel and pay some money. YouTube takes some, the creator gets the rest.

Why not just use this model instead of this politically driven sham that currently exists?

I'm the viewer, I'm the product. My attention has value - so why not let me to worry about what videos I want to support and leave the corporations out of it? YouTube is nothing without the viewer.

If YouTube is a platform and not a publisher, then they should act like the phone company. If I want to call some psychic hotline, just connect the call and take your cut.