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

141–150 of 180 posts

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

#141

Post by lordCarbonFiber »

prometheus76 wrote: post #58
lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Off topic, give that the tread is about an idea for protecting minority groups largely unserved by the algorithm.

I fail to see how a "but both sides" proclamation leads to any progress (other than maintaining the status quo which is awful good for a select group of people).

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

#142

Post by philpem »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #129
philpem wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the solution to that is decentralised services. To use a historical example, it's easier to moderate an IRC channel of 100 people than an IRC network of 10,000.

Or better yet, unmoderated. Usenet only fell apart because of the spam, and legal attacks by the RIAA and MPAA and BSA.

That would depend on your perspective and your own experiences, I expect.

I found the moderated sci.* and comp.* groups more pleasant for asking questions and giving answers. The alt.* hierarchy had its moments, but mostly it was an exercise in tolerance. Some groups were largely self-moderating, others had such a poor SNR that there was no point putting the time in.

The RIAA/MPAA/BSA raids were only really relevant if you were into pirating copyrighted material.

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

#143

Post by wyoh »

pjc50 wrote: post #101
wyoh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LGBT creators are not a special case, all news and politics commentators I follow are demonetized, all gun related channels as well.

That's probably a sign that you're being radicalised and should find some saner news and politics commentators.

They're demonetized all across the political spectrum. Be it right wing like Crowder or left-wing like Tim Pool.

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

#144

Post by tremon »

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.

Whereas an algorithm can be trusted to moderate ethically?

This is why civilized countries have developed rule of law, including arguments and rebuttals, overseen by an impartial arbiter.

Yes, that is costly. But it is the accepted solution we have as a society, and it's time "Big Tech" starts accepting rule of law.

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

#145

Post by Karunamon »

pjc50 wrote: post #101
wyoh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LGBT creators are not a special case, all news and politics commentators I follow are demonetized, all gun related channels as well.

That's probably a sign that you're being radicalised and should find some saner news and politics commentators.

That is a rather disgusting accusation to make, and one that eimultaneously indicates a political bias and presumes that automated moderation decisions are always correct.

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

#146

Post by goatinaboat »

dsjoerg wrote: post #123
goatinaboat wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is what we have now preferable? Imagine a YouTube that cost $10 to upload a video and $1 per comment. The quality of the content would be much higher and the hate speech would drop to zero. Wouldn’t that be preferable for society?

Global median per-capita daily income is $8. So I have to spend my whole day's income to upload a video? You're effectively restricting speech to the rich, and the poor just have to sit there and listen. That would be sad and unnecessary.

You can afford a camera, a laptop and a high speed connection, but not a token amount to cover moderating your upload? I don’t imagine this being a common scenario.

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

#147

Post by bakuninsbart »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #82
mushufasa wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All countries already have laws regulating speech to various degrees of freedom. Google's need to comply with these laws is part of the genesis for the moderation (e.g. copyright protection, child pornography). In fact, aggressive government laws for censorship are why Google chooses not to operate in China. The topic at hand is about monetization of ads -- the "acceptability" of the content is determined by the ad b…

Google was operating in China just fine even with censorship, they left because China started hacking gmail accounts. Some countries have much more rule of law than others.

https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-misery...

The article is very long, but definetely worth a read. Section III and VII specifically detail some of the things going on with their China business.

The Tldr is that a big reason for google to stop their censored search in China was due to internal resistance as well as animosity from Congress.

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

#148

Post by pjc50 »

wyoh wrote: post #143
pjc50 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably a sign that you're being radicalised and should find some saner news and politics commentators.

They're demonetized all across the political spectrum. Be it right wing like Crowder or left-wing like Tim Pool.

Doesn't sound like Tim Pool is really all that left wing: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Pool#Clickbait_content

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

#149

Post by aldoushuxley001 »

greglindahl wrote: post #62
aldoushuxley001 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yep. No chance that brigading will result. Also, how good are kids at evaluating what other people have reported?

Hackernews literally operates on this premise as well. Flagging is a very common feature. Crowdsourcing this is actually a very effective tactic.

Also, you'd be surprised how smart kids are if you give them the chance, have the right UI, etc.

I'm actually surprised the HN community seems to look down on crowdsourcing these efforts, kinda humorous.

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

#150

Post by dagw »

goatinaboat wrote: post #116
Mirioron wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The platform economics change in that case. Right now, anybody can upload content for free and it'll appear very quickly on the channel. If you increase the cost per video by mandating human oversight on videos, then YouTube will probably remove the ability for (most) people to upload videos for free. I don't think that that's preferable for society.

Is what we have now preferable? Imagine a YouTube that cost $10 to upload a video and $1 per comment. The quality of the content would be much higher and the hate speech would drop to zero. Wouldn’t that be preferable for society?

Imagine a YouTube that cost $10 to upload a video

Isn't that basically Vimeo's business model?

Post reply on HN