211–220 of 584 posts
So, assuming YouTube makes some manual adjustments to their algorithm to not flag/ban chess content, I wonder if actual hate speech will start pretending to be chess content in order to avoid detection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is obviously associating racism with something not intentionally racist. But does it not strike to you at all problematic, at the moment, that 'black' is a synonym of 'bad' and 'white' of 'good'? Does it not occur to you that it might improve our language to change that? Honestly, lately I feel like the opposite is the case. Everywhere I go anywhere online all I see is white people being shit on. I see incredibl…
List me some “racist things being said about white people” you have seen on the internet so we can all see...
It's just not worth it for me to engage like that anymore. How about bringing a discussion to what I said rather than asking for random proof of what I said. Look literally anywhere on the internet and you'll find it pretty easily.
Hell the AP News will capitalize Black but not White: https://apnews.com/article/7e36c00c5af0436abc09e051261fff1f
Stuff like that is just one of hundreds of examples. That article is what I'd consider more of a "casual racism" whereas I also see a lot more direct racism as well.
I'd personally rather be in a world where someone doesn't feel a need to specify someone's race before everything. People will add in race when it has no relevance or facts behind it.
I am sure you have heard the phrase "privileged white male" before. I can't even count on both my hands how many times I've been told that. And I'll be told that without the person even knowing my level of privilege, my gender, or my race. When you oppose the current politically correct fad you'll be called racist and people will assume your gender and race and use it as a derogatory/racist statement. It will be used to dismiss and invalidate an opinion.
For me personally my test is often pretty simple. If someone tries to dismiss an opinion by calling someone a "privileged white male" how would that be any better than dismissing someone's opinion for being black? To me they both are racist and just as bad in my mind. Neither is acceptable. Yet in todays society we know which one would be acceptable. As long as it's shitting on a white person or a male you're good to go.
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…
This article does contain very little information. But this channel is one I watch a lot of. It is dedicated to in depth chess commentary with some bits of chess history and I highly recommend it if you play. This it not the first time this has happened to Antonio. He even discussed it a bit the first time, 7 months ago. In that instance it was a single video that was removed. In that video he says “white will always…
This article is actually about that time seven months ago. Quite why it’s been written today is unclear.
Agadmator’s channel is truly a gem. He provides excellent analysis of interesting games and includes some great dives into chess history as well. I hope google gives an adequate explanation for this and makes sure it doesn’t happen again (not holding my breath)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSjrYWPxsG8
You would think he'd be whitelisted.
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 should be a criminal act to ban someone from your platform without pointing exactly to why they were banned. "Oh but we can't expose details of our ban process for people to game" Bullshit. They just don't want to have to answer to anyone for cutting them off.
“ 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?
Setting this case aside because it's sloppy reporting based on what another classifier found, this is a hard problem. Youtube gets too many videos and comments for humans to manually review them. Flagging helps, and Google likely uses ML more complex than just text and classifier (who is commenting, is the post trending, patterns in comments, etc.) When things do reach manual review, remember that humans make mistake…
Obviously, just watching every video in real-time a single time is not an adequate review process. Things can be missed, misunderstood, or just take more time to process, so it is likely that more review would be necessary for non-obvious cases. But, on the other hand, it is not necessary to review literally every second of every video. If they only reviewed reported videos and reports were required to specify the timestamp, they would probably instantly reduce this total burden by a factor of 10x-100x (assuming they filter out obvious spam reports). This would allow them to allocate more independent reviewers to the actual non-obvious cases resulting in reasonable accuracy with a human appeals process while reducing their overall cost burden significantly lower than the previously stated ~50%. They could then tier their review process based on the amount of views to allowing them to limit how many resources they spend on unpopular and irrelevant videos to focus on more visible and profitable videos while still providing a base level of review. And, all of this is assuming that they do not have any automated mechanism to directly decide on cases that are trivially obvious, thus reducing their burden even lower to only the contentious cases where the automated systems can not create a clear-cut answer. Frankly, I could go on about various other potential mechanisms they could do to reduce costs while increasing efficiency and avoiding bad actors, but what I have already said should already be sufficient to handle the basic problem.
All in all, they could probably institute a reasonable human review process that could handle all reasonable cases for [1] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/youtube-statistics/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm disagreeing with this thread. So I guess prepping for the down votes. > it trivializes all this historic pain to some inane game of word association I think addressing one issue does not 'trivialise' everything else. It can be horribly overstated but changing small fry can help provide momentum to change something more significant. > It's complete bullshit, It is obviously associating racism with something not in…
> > It is obviously associating racism with something not intentionally racist. > it is not just not intentionally racist -- there is no way any normal person would construe the term 'blacklist' as racist. it is as logically coherent as banning 'black pudding' for racism. it is purely an arbitrary exercise in power, making others submit to show them that they must. Exactly this. Addressing one issue does not triviali…
Really? Regardless of what you think about racism, I don't want to be funny isn't it obvious that one is a metaphor and one isn't?
This is not a racism question, but would you think 'Concrete' in 'ConcreteList' is functionally the same as in 'Concrete road'?
I can't imagine how a blacklist is the colour black. Blood sausage is. Except the Irish version I know. Which is called white pudding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is obviously associating racism with something not intentionally racist. But does it not strike to you at all problematic, at the moment, that 'black' is a synonym of 'bad' and 'white' of 'good'? Does it not occur to you that it might improve our language to change that? Honestly, lately I feel like the opposite is the case. Everywhere I go anywhere online all I see is white people being shit on. I see incredibl…
> all I see is white people being shit on I figured that would be the feel of the objection. Maybe I should be grateful as a white person that that's not the world I find myself in. Happy to pick my variable names. I can't help but feel that the antagonism here is very similar to the antagonism I mentioned about Gendered language. The anger seemed mostly caused by being surprised by being asked to think about somethi…