YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

Post by kthejoker2 » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 11:57 AM UTC

tssva wrote: post #96

kalleboo wrote: post #74

I don't see any problems with these rules in particular (I would prefer something less strict but we're talking America here), my problem is with all the seemingly innocent videos by people like EEVBlog that are purely noncontroversial tech stuff that gets instaflagged for no apparent reason. The manual review isn't the problem it's the initial algorithm that robs creators of all the views in the initial week(s) befo…

Except EEVBlog videos aren't completely innocent by these rules. I suspect a good number of Dave's past videos that have been flagged are because of cursing which he avoids today but definitely used to do occasionally. He can be culturally insensitive at times. I don't know if to the point that I would flag him as violating the rules, but then again these people were instructed that if in doubt flag. As the father of…

Post by PeterStuer » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 12:02 PM UTC

ar0 wrote: post #32

PeterStuer wrote: post #23

Google is an American company. Their "rules" are extremely embedded in a US culture. Unfortunately YouTube is a product that is consumed worldwide. Many of the regions where it has a dominant market share for web VoD do have cultural palates that are very different from the US. I feel Google should embrace their international position and be less biased in it's reasoning.

So, what is your suggestion here? Should they run with the most open interpretation (i.e. allow anything that is socially acceptable somewhere on earth) or most strict interpretation (i.e. limit stuff that might be offensive somewhere on earth)? Both approaches look rather impossible to me: the former would mean allowing stuff that might even be illegal in the U.S., the latter would mean that e.g. all videos showing…

Post by matt4077 » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 12:07 PM UTC

Post by bufferoverflow » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 12:08 PM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #119

bufferoverflow wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By strict rules I also mean objective and unbiased. Penis/vagina -> nudity (even if it's medical or educational). "Fuck" -> cursing (even if it's about the etymology of the word). Advocating murder of group X -> ban (even if you're quoting a religious text). If these rules are strict and clear, we have a chance of creating a legal-like system. Otherwise it's subjective chaos with everyone pissed off.

So a lecture quoting from the Old Testament, or an atheist quoting its worst parts, would get banned under your regime? Because, at least for the first three examples, you are explicitly including meta-discussions of the subject. It's impossible to create an "objective" standard. Because what you want to rate is meaning , and meaning is subjective, based on context and intent. One of history's most famous photos is o…

Post by SmellyGeekBoy » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 12:13 PM UTC

bufferoverflow wrote: post #38

amarkov wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strict rules for tagging would just run into the same problems as strict rules for demonetization. LGBT groups won't be any happier to see their content publicly branded "sexually explicit" than just demonetized.

By strict rules I also mean objective and unbiased. Penis/vagina -> nudity (even if it's medical or educational). "Fuck" -> cursing (even if it's about the etymology of the word). Advocating murder of group X -> ban (even if you're quoting a religious text). If these rules are strict and clear, we have a chance of creating a legal-like system. Otherwise it's subjective chaos with everyone pissed off.