171–180 of 180 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
We may be hitting the point where societal impact is great enough that people don't necessarily accept "We can't do that at scale" as an out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that it's basically untenable for Google not to unilaterally try and solve these social problems; activists and the press have been putting pressure on them to do so by leaning on advertisers to pull out, with enough success that the continued existence of YouTube is imperilled if they don't. The other problem is that the activists keep demanding things which will inevitably backfire. For example, late…
> I guess basically what I'm saying is that Google's content moderation problem is really a problem with our society, our politics, and our press. Were those activists you mentioned campaigning to explicitly get respected analysts removed? Not from what I remember. Lets compare this with a hypothetical: Lets say activists successfully got gov to newly introduce a speed limit. Some time later, a huge chunk of the emer…
A better analogy would be if campaigners demanded the police be forced to arrest anyone who broke the speed limit with no exemptions, called anyone who opposed them supporters of dangerous speeding, and then were shocked whem most of the emergency services ended up in jail.
I don't think there's even any way around this problem. The activists want anyone who reports on the far right in ways they consider excessively sympathetic to be banned too, and you can't implement "how activists feel" as the policy dictating what's allowed on something the size of YouTube. It just doesn't scale.
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…
Then I can just put ads on in the background while I'm cooking my dinner to save up ad bucks. I guess the solution is to use some technology to ensure that the viewer is watching the ads, like in Black Mirror S01E02.
Maximum ad balance = 3 ad bucks
Watching an ad requires clicking the watch button, so you can't queue them up.
People can walk away, minimize or block the ad even now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then I can just put ads on in the background while I'm cooking my dinner to save up ad bucks. I guess the solution is to use some technology to ensure that the viewer is watching the ads, like in Black Mirror S01E02.
There are simpler solutions like Maximum ad balance = 3 ad bucks Watching an ad requires clicking the watch button, so you can't queue them up. People can walk away, minimize or block the ad even now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I create content for YouTube and if I had to pay $10 per video then I would never make another YouTube video again. It doesn't matter that there are thousands of people (and tends of thousands+ sometimes), because I simply couldn't afford to spend time and effort to make a video and then spend extra money to share it.
You could make the argument that perhaps society is better off if I don't create content, but there are at least some people that claim they enjoy it.
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.
Why is the existence of YouTube specifically preferable to society? They're just a random company. No one has a right to their business model; if they can't figure out how to do make a video sharing site that doesn't harm people, they should go out of business to make space for someone who can. It's not like YouTube's particular implementation of video sharing is inherently better than Vimeo, PeerTube, or whatever el…
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…
> 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. I think that this actully is violent content - so this is actually an example where the algorithm worked fine (which does not contradict your argument that there exist false positives -…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. I think that this actully is violent content - so this is actually an example where the algorithm worked fine (which does not contradict your argument that there exist false positives -…
Is it really violent content when you're dealing with space ships with no humans or animals on board?
If you are referring to the game example given some posts above: "Killing" means that the respective object was alive before - a property that a space ship with no living beings onboard does not have. So the respective author named and labelled the video improperly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
possibly, they should have LGBTQ humans do the rating on what is homophobic etc
Sounds like a conflict of interest. If someone gets sued for rape, the jury doesn't get filled with rape victims.