81–90 of 584 posts
“ The researchers now suggest that social-media platforms should incorporate chess language in their algorithms to avoid future incidents like this.” Or maybe don’t automate banning YouTube channels via nebulous black boxes? Or can advertisers stop being afraid of anything and everything?
Not sure what a thinly resourced piece like this is doing so high up on HN. There’s really very little evidence that this has anything to do with racial slurs. From a quick read: last June, the channel was banned for “harmful and dangerous” content. The ban was removed in under 24 hours. YouTube has not confirmed the reason. And yet: > Experts suspect that it was the usage of words like "black" and "white" that confu…
It's old news, and it was discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23729156
Their either needs to be competition for Youtube or they need to face regulation. You can't have it both ways. The system does not work without one or the other.
There already are competitors to YouTube, and technically there's nothing stopping anyone from making their own video hosting site. Except overwhelming first-mover advantage and network effects, of course.
Remember Microsoft and Internet Explorer..
“ The researchers now suggest that social-media platforms should incorporate chess language in their algorithms to avoid future incidents like this.” Or maybe don’t automate banning YouTube channels via nebulous black boxes? Or can advertisers stop being afraid of anything and everything?
When they don't incorporate quick banning they get piled on by a mob for letting this or that bad person on their platform. And it's near impossible to monitor all of Youtube just with content moderators.
That’s the perception - but usually it’s at most a few hundred busybodies on Twitter, out of Google’s billions of users.
People just need to start ignoring these people. They are a tiny minority of people. (It just so happens that seemingly half of them are journalists at the nation’s biggest newspapers.)
“ The researchers now suggest that social-media platforms should incorporate chess language in their algorithms to avoid future incidents like this.” Or maybe don’t automate banning YouTube channels via nebulous black boxes? Or can advertisers stop being afraid of anything and everything?
Bear in mind what we have here is an example of the cutting edge of AI in its real world use. It doesn't exactly inspire faith in AI if some of the best is this thick when it comes to making decisions that would be incredibly basic for a human of even below average intelligence.
Just don't have an argument about a book or you could end up on death row. Gordon Dickson wrote a short story about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers_Don%27t_Argue
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny thing is, since nobody ever submits PRs to change it in the opposite direction, even one person going around on GitHub would be virtually guaranteed to eventually change all of them.
even one person going around on GitHub would be virtually guaranteed to eventually change all of them It only took one complaint from someone in Canada to get Dire Straits' "Money for Nothing" cut in half on SiriusXM for an entire continent. (Though you can still hear the full version on the deep tracks channel).)
Even after the decision was reversed[0]?
[0] https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/canada-lifts-b...
“ The researchers now suggest that social-media platforms should incorporate chess language in their algorithms to avoid future incidents like this.” Or maybe don’t automate banning YouTube channels via nebulous black boxes? Or can advertisers stop being afraid of anything and everything?
Maybe the advertisers are doing this on purpose? Deep down they know they would lose almost nothing by pulling from those platforms for a short period of time (the quality of online advertising has been in doubt for a long time), while pleasing the vocal minority.
At the same time, by playing moves like this would absolutely bring Google/Youtube to their knees, making it clear who is paying the bill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment has been moderated for racist language ("black boxes").
You kid but i've received 2 pull-requests on my open-source project, which only goal was to replace "Blacklist" with "Blocklist" in the app preferences. I don't receive many PRs. This is a real trend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You kid but i've received 2 pull-requests on my open-source project, which only goal was to replace "Blacklist" with "Blocklist" in the app preferences. I don't receive many PRs. This is a real trend.
Political correctness run amok! My company has now official guidelines that discourage 'whitelist' and 'blacklist' in new features, but I wonder how long before they make everyone go back and refactor these names. Git 'master' branch derangement is another example of this BS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Political correctness run amok! My company has now official guidelines that discourage 'whitelist' and 'blacklist' in new features, but I wonder how long before they make everyone go back and refactor these names. Git 'master' branch derangement is another example of this BS.
My company has mandated all of this. Change blacklist and whitelist, change the git master branch name, don't use master-slave, there's a list of "racially charged" terms and the replacements we're supposed to use. It's all a corporate virtue signal mask so they can lay people off and increase exec compensation and still claim to have some moral high ground.