141–150 of 451 posts
The fault is on YouTube’s reliance on automated systems, making permanent decisions, without human intervention. However, in my humble opinion, people are naturally lazy. The humans who might be charged with reviewing automated decisions are no different. Especially if there is a cultural or language divide.
:s/YouTube/Google
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a peer-to-peer video client, with part of it's data being directly shared (similarly to torrents) and part via a blockchain. This makes it highly resistant to censorship and thus is where many people are moving their channels to.
> This makes it highly resistant to censorship We should probably stop using this phrase as a feature Instant thought was "ok so other than this channel it's all racism"
Any large communication platform has a choice: either accept some form of content neutrality or become a petty and chaotic tyrant constantly reeling from one public backlash after the other. YouTube made its choice. Now, random videos and channels get demonetized, content gets deleted for no reason and people covering basic news speak in code to avoid the wrath of the idiot AI. In the background Google publishes bats…
> either accept some form of content neutrality or become a petty and chaotic tyrant constantly reeling from one public backlash after the other No, there is a middle ground that Google, with its army of engineers, could implement in a weekend: 1. You stop trying to assume you know what advertisers want their ads to be displayed on. 2. You implement a basic, fixed (but can be expanded) ACL-type system based on catego…
Who or what ensures that the Q conspiracy channel is properly categorized as "politically sketchy content" and not "hacking content"?
The reality is no amount of computer code will fix a human problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Watch one "conservative news" video and it will do a complete 180. Ads for "rations", "preparing for the end of the world", "how to be self sustainable", tons of PragerU propaganda, and some of the most low quality l BS you'll ever see from political ads. YouTube delivers content based on what you've watched.
I watch a lot of lefty "news" and infotainment. I still get ads for the conservative propaganda, survival rations, prepping, etc. I think it's because I also watch a lot of firearms hobby content. Kinda silly, but it does make me chuckle that people like Ben Shapiro, PragerU, and 4Patriots are subsidizing my lefty youtube subscriptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a peer-to-peer video client, with part of it's data being directly shared (similarly to torrents) and part via a blockchain. This makes it highly resistant to censorship and thus is where many people are moving their channels to.
> This makes it highly resistant to censorship We should probably stop using this phrase as a feature Instant thought was "ok so other than this channel it's all racism"
>…the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
—John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Truth is not determined by a list of approved opinions, it can only be revealed by rigorously disproving everything that opposes it.
All these calls for censorship make me think we really are doomed to repeat history forever.
Any large communication platform has a choice: either accept some form of content neutrality or become a petty and chaotic tyrant constantly reeling from one public backlash after the other. YouTube made its choice. Now, random videos and channels get demonetized, content gets deleted for no reason and people covering basic news speak in code to avoid the wrath of the idiot AI. In the background Google publishes bats…
Don't forget the police playing copyrighted music while they abuse you to stop you from filming them. When the police are ahead of the tech, you know the People are f'd.
Yeah, they're being shitty piggies, but we have tech we can use too.
Any large communication platform has a choice: either accept some form of content neutrality or become a petty and chaotic tyrant constantly reeling from one public backlash after the other. YouTube made its choice. Now, random videos and channels get demonetized, content gets deleted for no reason and people covering basic news speak in code to avoid the wrath of the idiot AI. In the background Google publishes bats…
> either accept some form of content neutrality or become a petty and chaotic tyrant constantly reeling from one public backlash after the other No, there is a middle ground that Google, with its army of engineers, could implement in a weekend: 1. You stop trying to assume you know what advertisers want their ads to be displayed on. 2. You implement a basic, fixed (but can be expanded) ACL-type system based on catego…
The problem: for some of these, the definitions, the legality status and the liabilities (especially around "politically sketchy" stuff) may differ wildly between jurisdictions. And you will always have trolls mis-labeling their content on purpose, or content that is to be classified as "gambling" in the US but not in Germany... the list of issues is endless.
> 3. YOU LET THE GOD DAMN ADVERTISERS DECIDE FOR THEIR OWN GOD DAMNED SELVES WHAT KIND OF CONTENT THEY'RE OK WITH ADVERTISING ON.
And then they will still have headlines "Youtube allowing Nazis, antivaxxers, incels and other threats to the general public". Not to mention the legal issues (e.g. Nazi content is banned in Germany/Austria, LGBT content in Russia, a whole boatload of stuff illegal in India with jail threats for local staff)...
> 5. You stop playing God and pretending that the concept of global "community standards" means anything at all in a world with 7 billion people and hundreds of thousands of disparate interests-based communities, each with their own disparate community standards.
You will always need some sort of "global minimum standards" that ideally is at least somewhat of a common ground in Western-allied nations. And that means: no Nazis/white supremacists, no Qanon, no antivaxxers, no incels, no adult content/gore, no drugs (tobacco/alcohol/illegalized drugs), no gambling, no glorification of violence.
YouTube has been changing in weird ways in the last year or so. The amount of propaganda on the platform is ridiculous, though very frequently disguised as "news" or "educational". As someone who's been around quite a bit, I can also imagine that it doesn't look like propaganda to average Americans (I'd be glad to be wrong on this). A great deal of content is just plain sophistry too. Inspecting comments, it seems th…
I certainly don't see that on the youtube channels I frequent, but admit that the 'news' is typically op-ed disguised as news.
An alternative theory is that they (youtube) pushes 'news' since it pays well and is quite popular. 'News' tends to come from official channels over time with a kind of network effect. Those channels are all Pravda. The fact that it's propaganda is not necessarily a youtube choice but a major news organization choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Was that because they got big, or was it because they were granted a government monopoly? The first one. Natural monopolies exist. This libertarian talking point of "there wouldn't be monopolies without government intervention" is lunacy.
>The first one. Can you provide the legislative history that supports this? According to wikipedia airlines, cell phone companies, cruise ships, and shipping companies operate as common carriers, even though none of them are controlled by monopolies. > Natural monopolies exist. This libertarian talking point of "there wouldn't be monopolies without government intervention" is lunacy. I'm not a libertarian, but I can…
No, I'm not a lawyer/historian.
> According to wikipedia airlines, cell phone companies, cruise ships, and shipping companies operate as common carriers, even though none of them are controlled by monopolies.
Airlines, cruise ships, and shipping companies, do not own the 'land' (in the georgist sense) that they traverse, so they're just completely irrelevant to the discussion.
As for cell phone companies, you may remember that a certain company known as AT&T was famously broken up into dozens of smaller companies (that have since re-congealed). Also those companies are legally required to interoperate with each other, ie: your T-Mobile phone will "roam" on AT&T's network.
> I'm not a libertarian, but I can still see the difference between "it would be really expensive to lay another set of phone lines" and "the state forbids you from laying another set of phone lines".
As far as I'm aware, the state, does not forbid anyone from laying another set of phone lines or railroad lines or roads, for the same reason that it doesn't forbid anyone from violating conservation of energy.