311–320 of 584 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely there's some space between "Recommend" and "Ban"?
Why should people be allowed to watch anything except what's best for them? /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know, everything was fine when the YouTube recommendation engine accidentally radicalized half English-speaking world and created a profitable fascist political movement.
Surely there's some space between "Recommend" and "Ban"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 100,000 people might not be enough to just deal With flags... You’re off by orders of magnitude. 500 * 60 * 24 * 365 = 262800000 hours per year / 1.3x playback speed / 2,000 hours of work per person per year = ~101,077 people to watch every uploaded video. Less if people are watching at higher playback speeds or working significantly more than a 40h week. I would personally be surprised if even 1 in 1,000 videos wh…
> 500 * 60 * 24 * 365 = 262800000 hours per year / 1.3x playback speed / 2,000 hours of work per person per year = ~101,077 people to watch every uploaded video. When you have people watch the video at that fast speed and instantly make a decision, you might as well keep the algorithm - the failure rate won't be too different. Additionally, these people need holidays, managers, infrastructure and an actual flag will…
Reading the article, "human error" really isn't a reasonable description of what happened:
> The Facebook furor began when the social network deleted the famous photo from Norwegian author Tom Egeland’s Facebook page, where it was part of a series of memorable wartime imagery.
This could be a human error, sure.
> When Egeland subsequently posted his shocked reaction to the removal of the “napalm girl” photo, he found his account suspended.
But not this.
> Norway’s largest newspaper, Aftenposten, published Egeland’s story on the censorship, only to find that its own Facebook posts were also quickly deleted.
Definitely not this.
> Espen Egil Hansen, Aftenposten’s editor, then took to the front page of his paper to slam Facebook in an open letter to CEO Mark Zuckerberg
> Prime Minister Solberg joined the debate on Friday, only to find that her comments and posts about the suppressed photo were also deleted by Facebook.
This is a (ridiculously severe) problem in several of Facebook's policies, not a classification error.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Actually watching every YouTube video uploaded would take ~100,000 people which is possible, but quite expensive. Actually watching every video that’s flagged for banning might take ~100 people and seem like a reasonable effort. As such arguments about using automated systems are meaningless, they can pre-filter without having final decision making authority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may not be intentionally racist, but that doesn’t make it not racist. Consider why white moves first in chess. They literally did this two years ago: https://en.chessbase.com/post/carlsen-and-giri-campaign-for-... Anyway, in many religions the light illuminates things while darkness is the absence of light. So it’s not just about people’s race...
In go (baduk) black moves first. Does it make go not racist? On the other hand, white needs 6.5 less points to win (komi). Does it make go racist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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? It would depend on the content and context of the opinion itself, no? Why not just ask the dismissing person why they say that? We’ve come to the point where we generalize and characterize instead of understanding, then simply disagreeing. > Yet in today…
> I’m really curious to why you feel this way? You actually answered this question yourself with your next paragraph :). Currently being racist towards white males gives businesses, influencers, and politicians more power. And I fundamentally disagree with this notion. I do not think shitting on particular groups of people should make someone excel. I think it should show what kind of negative person they are and the…
FWIW I just see shitting on white men as some kind of catharsis for women and people of color. There is a lot more deep pain that needs to be expressed before any real racial healing. Ironically, to your point it may have the opposite of intended effect, but I don't think repressing the emotions that come with unpacking Western society's history of racism is a productive move either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that you're not thinking about the context of the word and instead are using it in a different context to be offended by it. I'd argue that you are the one who needs to think about it a bit more instead of blindly calling others names and trying to police the grammatically correct words someone uses. Just because you think and associate something with a negative racial implication when you see a word d…
> Just because you think and associate something with a negative racial implication when you see a word doesn't mean others are. I personally am able to look at a word and understand the context surrounding the word. We also only get change requests for the associations that point in one direction. It's called "in the black" when you're making a profit. Is anyone trying to get accountants to stop calling it that? Her…
Unfortunately in todays society people policing words only pretend to care to get their woke bonus points. If it's not a current trending word of the day to hate then it doesn't get any attention.
I find the word policing hilarious because like your example illustrate, there is no logic to the hatred.
In this thread someone is trying to justify not liking the word "blacklist". By that logic "black market" should also be a bad word to use. Yet nobody uses the word "white market", but they do use the word "grey market". So what word here is bad? Is using "black market" bad? Then why would "grey market" be okay? It wouldn't make sense. It means they are for some reason associating black with the race, yet are associating grey with a colour. Logically that doesn't make sense.
Yet if "white market" was a thing I bet there would be trouble. Most scary things in horror movies use darkness to set the mood. A scary creature that is pretty much all black like the Slenderman would not look scary if they were almost all white. To us humans we associate different colours with different things. We also use these words as synonyms for different things.
Like you indicate, white is also used for "negative" things as well.
Overall I just can't follow along with the word policing culture. There is no way someone is going to convince me it is "correct" when it logically and consistently doesn't make sense. My mind can't understand why blackmarket would not be offensive but blacklist would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes exactly. Either you're "with" the mob or you're getting mobbed. The word police and thought police are in full force on sites like Twitter and reddit now.
It’s really ridiculous on TikTok.
I've even seen sections of TikToks with people pretty clearly faking mental disorders for attention. It's honestly kinda sad. I guess I am kinda glad I just missed the explosion of social media in school. I'm sure social media just creates so many more issues in young adults. And the weird things you do when you're young will forever be stored somewhere online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Will the company operate in the red instead of in the black as well?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should people be allowed to watch anything except what's best for them? /s
I don't care if what you watch is good or bad for you . I care if what you watch turns you into a threat to me . Based on the past few years, it looks like maybe 20% of the general population is suggestible enough to endanger the rest of us.
There's a slippery slope here, and I feel it's one so large that we can't even tell we're already sliding on it.
The obvious answer is a well-informed populace that isn't easily swayed by emotion and fear, and has the time and inclination to do their own fact checking. Trouble is, that's obviously a pipe dream. Other ideas, such as Facebook's new governing body are interesting, but I fear will be troublesome in other ways. Still, it's an experiment in the right direction I believe.