Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

news18.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 584 posts

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#331

Post by chii »

drak0n1c wrote: post #225
andrewzah wrote: post #5

“ 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?

Advertisers, youtubers, users, brands - everyone was happy prior to the era of demonetization. What killed the golden goose was an extremely small set of activists and journalists (specifically Media Matters and Vox) methodically threatening brands with publication of screenshots of their "support" for controversial niche videos. And just enough brand marketing and YouTube employees were cowed, or at least ideologica…

It's stupid, because in the era of television, people understood that the advertising commercial breaks in programmes were distinct from the actual content of the programme, and that the advertisers are _not_ endorsing the contents of the programme at all!

How this somehow translated, in the era of online youtube videos, to the exact opposite is still a mystery to me. So what if your ad appeared next to something radical on youtube? So what if your ads appeared next to some weird sex segment of youtube? People who see it aren't going to confuse the ads with the video, just the same as people watching television isn't confusing the ads with the programme.

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#332

Post by berryjerry »

retox wrote: post #314
Retric wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They could just manually review the videos the algo flagged as potentially ban worthy. It might even given YT an incentive to hone their algorithm to be more accurate since it would reduce their bottom-line.

Right. The algorithm should just identify videos that need to be reviewed, not ban them. It should also be a sliding scale. If a video has 5 total views, it shouldn't need a ban or a review because no one is watching it. Places like this chess channel with a million subscribers and hundreds of thousands of views per video should all easily get a manually review. Automating bans for channels with that level of a following is just lack of respect for their content producers.

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#333

Post by idiocrat »

andrewzah wrote: post #5

“ 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?

Or maybe cancel/ban chess, as it promotes racial differences and dispute settling by the means of aggression/opponent termination. A harmonized/normalized society may not see the color differences or military-style subordination with royal elites hiding behind sacrificial peasants.

At least make all figure look alike, gender-less and class-less and color them in random rainbow colors.

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#334

Post by gretch »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #304
bsder wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those aren't great, but if you ask people whether they want to pay $10/month for YouTube so human moderators can stop this from happening or get it for free and have the .0001% chance that they get banned purely by accident, they'll take the latter. At this point, I view YouTube like I viewed bars that allowed smoking--it was sufficiently popular that nobody could compete against it even though it was harmful. So,…

> I firmly believe that smoking bans have killed live music What's the connection?

Is an astoundingly extreme claim. First we have to accept the premise that live music is “dead”. Second it’s due to some orthogonal factor like a smoking ban as opposed to recorded music becoming way more accessible through technology.

It’s an extreme claim with very little rigor.

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#336

Post by Judgmentality »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #323
pjanoman wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does youtube do that is monopolistic? Just because all users congregate onto one site doesn't mean that Youtube needs to be broken apart.

I don't think Youtube necessarily needs to be broken apart, but they are a natural monopoly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly The cost to a competitor is in getting a user to switch. Think of it in terms of paying users: how much would you have to pay someone to switch from Youtube to your site? Multiply the average by the number of users, and that's the advantage Youtube has over competitors.

Ooh, this is something I've often wondered (and has become more interesting since Alphabet recently started revealing revenue numbers for YouTube) - can YouTube be profitable as a standalone entity?

The reason I ask is because, despite all its flaws, YouTube is one of the treasures of the internet. And I wonder if we'd lose it by breaking up Alphabet.

I am not pro-Alphabet and 100% believe Alphabet needs more regulation, and quite frankly does need some trust busting, but I'd be really sad to lose YouTube. Yeah, there's vimeo but it's clearly not a direct competitor. I also fondly remember stage6 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stage6).

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#337

Post by sillysaurusx »

yellowapple wrote: post #327
sillysaurusx wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Youtube necessarily needs to be broken apart, but they are a natural monopoly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly The cost to a competitor is in getting a user to switch. Think of it in terms of paying users: how much would you have to pay someone to switch from Youtube to your site? Multiply the average by the number of users, and that's the advantage Youtube has over competitors.

YouTube doesn't really fit the definition of a natural monopoly, particularly because there's nothing fundamentally stopping other services from popping up. YouTube's status as an effective monopoly doesn't come from some sort of scarcity of the means of production. > The cost to a competitor is in getting a user to switch. Only if we're assuming that users and uploaders will only ever use exactly one service at any…

Then where is the YouTube competitor? The closest seems to be odysee (https://odysee.com/) where you're lucky to break a few hundred views.

Suppose YouTube disappeared tomorrow. Where would everyone go? Probably odysee. So why don't they go there now? That's why Youtube is a natural monopoly.

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#338

Post by a1369209993 »

sago wrote: post #219
a1369209993 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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…

> 'blacklist'.. is as logically coherent ... 'black pudding' 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 kn…

They said banning one was "as logically coherent as" banning the other, not that one was functionally the same as the other. (But since we're on this tangent, the only black pudding I've encountered was (admittedly dark) red, not black. Also revolting, but supposedly that's normal?)

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#339

Post by tomcooks »

pjanoman wrote: post #321
nautilus12 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just described a monopoly

What does youtube do that is monopolistic? Just because all users congregate onto one site doesn't mean that Youtube needs to be broken apart.

Yeah the fact that said service is the very first result on a major search engine, who's conveniently the owner of said service, has nothing to do with it. Organic congregation and all.

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#340

Post by SilverRed »

das4119 wrote: post #85
bartread wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Frankly the whole thing stinks. On the whim of an unaccountable AI basically anything can happen. We need laws around this sooner rather than later. AIs are getting more powerful but less responsible. 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

Youtube is in between a rock and a hard place as well as all user generated content sites.

Either they automate removing content and end up removing some of the good with the mountains of bad, or they do it manually which costs a fortune and is too slow.

The local news is still ridiculing Facebook because they left the stream up for the NZ shooting for hours and their stated reason "No one watching the video had reported it". Well what do we want facebook to do? Hire thousands of people to watch every single livestream live?

IMO we should all move to some kind of self hosting where there is no central mega corp that takes responsibility for the content. You host your own content and you stand behind it legally. As long as its legal content, you have no risk of being shut down.

Post reply on HN