Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube’s LGBTQ Problem Is a Business-Model Problem

onezero.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 180 posts

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

#41

Post by perl4ever »

zzzcpan wrote: post #32
fareesh wrote: post #20

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 rel…

Ads don't convert if people are externally motivated to watch them.

It seems to me that some of the most valuable information for an advertiser would be what kind of ads someone will voluntarily choose to watch. Saying they may not convert is like complaining that you can't eat free money.

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

#42

Post by Mirioron »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #22
Mirioron wrote: post #16

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…

The point is that they shouldn't do it algorithmically. They need to have guidelines for what type of content is acceptable, and hire people to enforce them.

Then the costs of YouTube probably balloon so high that it doesn't matter for creators whether their videos are demonetized or not, because they aren't going to earn anything from them.

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

#44

Post by viraptor »

mushufasa wrote: post #27
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

What about attaching a 'reputation' score to the flagger? E.g. something like: - if there are sufficient flags, trigger a moderator review - flaggers who correctly flagged content get +1 score or -1 score if not that would make it harder for people to consistently flag content maliciously. Like age-old moderation systems such as calling 911 or police. If you abuse calling 911, you can get fined. I imagine this has be…

Have a look at some of the organised voting/flagging campaigns originating from *chans. Those can range from just manual action to automated scripts + account takeovers. Also if you can both post comments and flag them from a different account - free karma.

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

#45

Post by ralusek »

big_chungus wrote: post #19
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?

Not to mention that people are biased and cannot be trusted to moderate ethically.

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

#46

Post by ralusek »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #26
big_chungus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

If YouTube can't protect its users, and the content people are posting is too distressing even for moderators, maybe YouTube shouldn't exist?

Isn't a more reasonable solution that the users select content that they are comfortable with, or just leave the platform altogether? YouTube is mine and hundreds of millions of people's favorite site on the internet. If I see content I don't like, I go to other content.

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

#47

Post by scarejunba »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #26
big_chungus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

If YouTube can't protect its users, and the content people are posting is too distressing even for moderators, maybe YouTube shouldn't exist?

Listen. I love YouTube, other people love YouTube. For some reason, the people who don't love YouTube insist on asking YouTube go go away. Just go post your videos on YetAnotherTube where you manually run video review and all that shit.

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

#49

Post by techdragon »

mushufasa wrote: post #27
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

What about attaching a 'reputation' score to the flagger? E.g. something like: - if there are sufficient flags, trigger a moderator review - flaggers who correctly flagged content get +1 score or -1 score if not that would make it harder for people to consistently flag content maliciously. Like age-old moderation systems such as calling 911 or police. If you abuse calling 911, you can get fined. I imagine this has be…

This concept reminds me of the “meta-moderation” that happened/happens in SlashDot. It’s good to have a second order effect to damp down excessive fluctuations in your first order mechanisms.
Post reply on HN