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

Google's Video Nasties

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 30 posts

Re: Google's Video Nasties

#11

Post by DanBC »

tunocina wrote: post #6
pjc50 wrote: post #4

Is this related to the "restricted mode" fiasco with its over-broad restriction on LGBT content? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/03/21/youtube-rev...

What's the real deal with "restricted mode"? I don't think they care too much about people having to sign up to be able to watch a video. Do restricted videos show no ads? I can understand certain businesses not wanting to see their ads displayed next to some BDSM gay parade, LGTBI++ propaganda, beheadings or other extreme violence, etc. In that case, if they show no ads, why host them at all, if they can't cover the…

In theory restricted mode gives some control to parents who might be happy to let their children watch Etho playing minecraft, but not RoosterTeeth Let's Play playing minecraft.

In practice, and everyone knows this, filters fucking suck and either have terrible false negatives and don't block awful content, or terrible false positives and block stuff that shouldn't be blocked, or both.

That's nothing to do with this, which is that advertisers don't want their ads next to people saying rape is ok.

Re: Google's Video Nasties

#12

Post by fareesh »

I get the argument that corporations ought to take responsibility for where their money goes, but I feel like this is a bit similar to if I buy a cookie and the cookie baker buys a house and the former owner of the house buys a gun and kills some people - is it reasonable to hold me partly responsible for contributing to it? Should we want that level of control in our lives? What's the average degrees of Kevin Bacon between someone and an unscrupulous person? Do we reserve this kind of judgement for felons or white collar criminals as well?

From what I understand of online targeted advertising is that it's a way for corporations to target the viewer, as opposed to the video they are watching. I have a diverse array of interests and watch a whole bunch of videos on YouTube on a variety of subjects. I am not defined by a single video or channel.

As per my understanding, I am the commodity. If I am a history buff and I want to watch an Adolf Hitler speech for academic reasons or just curiosity, by casting aspersions on the channel or the video, you are effectively casting aspersions on me! Is the value of my time tainted because of one video or channel?

In my experience, when I look at something on Amazon, I invariably see an ad for it later on on some other site. It's clear to me that this is a connection between Amazon and me via the ad network. It puzzles me as to why there seems to be this outdated mentality about how this works, which incorrectly associates the ad with the page instead of the user.

Re: Google's Video Nasties

#13

Post by kbenson »

In reality, they don't really want to clamp down since more controls reduce ad inventory and add to their costs. (As Gadfly colleague Shira Ovide points out, the tech giants' biggest enemy is hubris.)

That seems forced. I understand it's a link to another article that they wanted to include somehow, but it's specifically not hubris if they have a valid reason, and as just stated it's because it reduces inventory and adds to their costs.

Re: Google's Video Nasties

#14

Post by nl »

Someone1234 wrote: post #2

The ironic thing is that this creates the very problem it seeks to solve... If advertisers have no control over which content their ads appear near then they can legitimately claim, when criticised, that they are unable to pick and choose. By giving advertisers control, when criticised, the critics can use that same control in order to pressure advertisers to limit ads to inoffensive content only (which, frankly, is…

But with the direction "being offended" has taken (i.e. someone on twitter will take offense to anything, and they feel they have a legitimate right to never feel offended) it won't be long before most content is inaccessible.

I dunno. I find Nazis, cat torture videos and pro-ISIS propaganda offensive. But you are right, clearly free speech must be protected at all costs and even made profitable, and clearly it being remove from YouTube and no longer subsidized by major brands advertising would be a huge set back for it.

Maybe people could go to NaziCatTorturers.com and pay to see it or something.

Re: Google's Video Nasties

#15

Post by the8472 »

SurrealSoul wrote: post #8

I wonder if front-loading advertisements is the future. Drinking your verification can before you get on the YouTube ride.

Google Adcaptcha - please click on brands that have recently been advertised in your browser or apps if you want to access this site.

Re: Google's Video Nasties

#16

Post by jff »

maxerickson wrote: post #10
Someone1234 wrote: post #2

The ironic thing is that this creates the very problem it seeks to solve... If advertisers have no control over which content their ads appear near then they can legitimately claim, when criticised, that they are unable to pick and choose. By giving advertisers control, when criticised, the critics can use that same control in order to pressure advertisers to limit ads to inoffensive content only (which, frankly, is…

I think your implication that any number of offended people will be acted on is a stretch. Advertisers will respond to the masses, not the most outraged hecklers.

> Advertisers will respond to the masses, not the most outraged hecklers.

Twitter seems to be proving that wrong these days.

Re: Google's Video Nasties

#17

Post by tunocina »

DanBC wrote: post #11
tunocina wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the real deal with "restricted mode"? I don't think they care too much about people having to sign up to be able to watch a video. Do restricted videos show no ads? I can understand certain businesses not wanting to see their ads displayed next to some BDSM gay parade, LGTBI++ propaganda, beheadings or other extreme violence, etc. In that case, if they show no ads, why host them at all, if they can't cover the…

In theory restricted mode gives some control to parents who might be happy to let their children watch Etho playing minecraft, but not RoosterTeeth Let's Play playing minecraft. In practice, and everyone knows this, filters fucking suck and either have terrible false negatives and don't block awful content, or terrible false positives and block stuff that shouldn't be blocked, or both. That's nothing to do with this,…

Maybe I'm confusing restricted mode with something else? I think it's this: http://i.imgur.com/Kne3CvL.png

I don't think those restrictions are applied automatically. I believe they are set when a video get lots of reports. Maybe it only takes a few reports to restrict the videos, or maybe a human has to evaluate them before flipping the switch. As much as filters suck (I agree with you), I think a few false positives are worth it if we don't show a kid a video of some idiot saying rape is ok.

But I don't use youtube much, so I might be wrong... that's why I ask. :)

Re: Google's Video Nasties

#18

Post by devoply »

fareesh wrote: post #12

I get the argument that corporations ought to take responsibility for where their money goes, but I feel like this is a bit similar to if I buy a cookie and the cookie baker buys a house and the former owner of the house buys a gun and kills some people - is it reasonable to hold me partly responsible for contributing to it? Should we want that level of control in our lives? What's the average degrees of Kevin Bacon…

The point of all of this is social control by corporations and their owners and managers over the culture. Corporations hold most of the money and they only give it to people who distribute money according to what the owners and managers of the corporations feel is worthy because they do what the corporations want or more specifically what their owners and managers want. That locks out any sub-culture outside of social control and relegates them to lower/poorer levels of society, economically. That might control bad things, but it might also censor things which are not mainstream global corporate culture.

Re: Google's Video Nasties

#19

Post by noxToken »

SurrealSoul wrote: post #8

I wonder if front-loading advertisements is the future. Drinking your verification can before you get on the YouTube ride.

I know stuff like this is usually noise, but this 4chan[0] image is super relevant to this comment. If you weren't specifically referencing this, color me impressed.

[0]: https://imgur.com/r/4chan/dgGvgKF

Re: Google's Video Nasties

#20

Post by blowski »

fareesh wrote: post #12

I get the argument that corporations ought to take responsibility for where their money goes, but I feel like this is a bit similar to if I buy a cookie and the cookie baker buys a house and the former owner of the house buys a gun and kills some people - is it reasonable to hold me partly responsible for contributing to it? Should we want that level of control in our lives? What's the average degrees of Kevin Bacon…

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the distasteful publishers were receiving money from the adverts. So the headlines were technically correct to say "Marks & Spencer gives money to homophobic terrorists". There is a link in Google's advertising model between the page and the advert - the video is the placeholder on which the publisher is placing its advert.

I accept that the solution is difficult, but Google designed and benefits enormously from this system, so it's reasonable to expect them to do something about it.

Post reply on HN