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

51–60 of 180 posts

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

#51

Post by aldoushuxley001 »

ralusek wrote: post #45
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?

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

Yeah it seems the best solutions simply involve users flagging content themselves and being able to see what other people have reported regarding other content

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

#52

Post by gnicholas »

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…

Interesting idea. I think people would turn on ad mode and then go to the other room or switch to a different window. I definitely did this when Hulu (I think) offers the option to watch one long commercial instead of several short ones spread throughout the program.

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

#53

Post by grogenaut »

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?

Read up on the term "brigading"... It's where a bunch of people usually try and sour a ml approval system for nefarious purposes or to enforce their opinions. Happens a lot with lbgtqia and gender issues in gaming. This is a difficult issues made harder because your going against intelligent opponents.

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

#54

Post by cameldrv »

ralusek wrote: post #46
jakelazaroff wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The users don't select content. The recommender algorithm does, and then it autoplays it.

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

#55

Post by shyish »

perl4ever wrote: post #41
zzzcpan wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would be interesting to advertisers put out competing adds and users having the choice to watch them. Potentially some lesser known names could emerge, because larger companies already have recognition and would be less motivated to create voluntary ads.

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

#56

Post by umeshunni »

perl4ever wrote: post #41
zzzcpan wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Advertisers don't care about what ads people want to watch. They care about what ads convert.

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

#57

Post by prometheus76 »

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…

The problem with that plan is "correctly" flagged content is subjective. You've only added a layer of moderation to the original problem.

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

#58

Post by prometheus76 »

lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #17
mushufasa wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, it's a good thing those brigading actions never go the other way, though, right? That would be wrong and immature and just plain hypocritical...Sure glad it never happens!

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

#59

Post by ralusek »

cameldrv wrote: post #54
ralusek wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The users don't select content. The recommender algorithm does, and then it autoplays it.

If you really don't like it, don't go on the site. I don't go on almost every site there is. Do you think it is a morally defensible position that your sensibilities be foisted upon other people in such an extreme fashion that you would deny them access to a platform altogether? Don't you think it's at least worth exploring something akin to subreddits, where communities can be moderated to the tastes of the specific tolerances that represent the group?

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

#60

Post by pdkl95 » 

  s/(algorithmic|human) moderation/a rule of law/g
This mess will only get worse as long as Google insists on trying to fix unsolved social conflicts unilaterally. Google made themselves the primary target when they started to make decisions with large social consequences by fiat. They de facto implemented rule of man[1].

The solution is to not be the sole entity with the power to make decisions about unsolved social issues. Relinquish the power to make decisions about what kind of content is "acceptable" by implementing a rule of law managed by some kind of publicly accountable, transparent governance,

Google (and anybody else that controls something the public relies upon as infrastructure) has a ch9oice: keep the power to make socially-important decisio9ns and accept the blame and responsibility for those decisions, or abandon that power to make the whole mess someone else's problem.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_man

Post reply on HN