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

YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 293 posts

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#131

Post by notatoad »

noego wrote: post #22

Honestly, it's pretty ridiculous that YouTube is being pressured to police the content on its platform. What worries me far more than extremist videos on YouTube, is the idea of a mega-corporation exerting outsized influence over the opinions we are exposed to. Is our democracy really so fragile that it cannot survive an open marketplace of ideas?

I think it's fairly reasonable that anybody who runs a recommendation service is held responsible for the content they recommend. YouTube isn't just a video hosting platform, it's a homepage providing recommendations, a service that automatically queues up a new video after the one you're currently watching, and an advertising network that directly funds the creation of the videos they host. YouTube is already putting their thumb on the scale - the least they can do is be responsible about what they recommend.

It's been pretty clear over the last couple years that our democracy really is so fragile that it can't survive one of the dominant media companies of the day actively promoting extremist and hateful content.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#132

Post by Spivak »

kzcqt wrote: post #90
krapp wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of other video streaming sites exist. Competition certainly isn't impossible, and competitors don't have to operate at Youtube's scale to be viable, assuming they target a niche demographic.

A competitor would need to operate at youtube's scale for it to be considered a serious competitor. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation, given that websites like Dailymotion and Vimeo exist, but no "youtube stars" use them.

I don't really think so. A turnkey "host your own video site" would pretty much qualify a competitor -- I'm far more loyal to the people I watch on YouTube/Twitch than the platforms themselves. If they moved to their own site it wouldn't matter too much to me assuming I still had a way to get it on my TV.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#133

Post by darkwizard42 »

enitihas wrote: post #87
keiferski wrote: post #19

Frankly, I hope YouTube (and Google in general) dramatically overdo it with the censorship, "curation", and deplatforming of "irresponsible" content, purely so that it forces an independent, non-corporate model to be developed. Having one company be the sole gatekeeper for the overwhelming majority of the web's video content is not a solution.

I don't think any new platform is going to be able to compete with YouTube at all with the current regulations. How will any new platform comply with new EU copyright laws, or remove unlawful videos as quickly as YouTube? (e.g the unfortunate New Zealand terrorist attack)

Is it a bad thing to make all new platforms have the ability to remove violating content as a base part of the platform? It means more investment in developing the tool, but I'd love to discuss more on why we think its okay that a "hot new" platform should be supported purely because it violates laws that the community deems important.

ex. Lyft + Uber are an example I can think of where violation of existing laws was the only way to create innovation.

Would love to hear more thoughts on how this might work with content/video companies

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#134

Post by creato »

krapp wrote: post #97
Mirioron wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But do those video streaming sites offer comparable quality to YouTube, while also giving away half of the ad revenue they receive? Because YouTube does that. If it didn't give away half of the ad revenue to creators then YouTube would probably never have become as big as it is now. We know that YouTube has trouble making money with this type of criteria. What do you think is the chance that another company with far…

Youtube is so capricious with demonetizing user content that it's become a meme, and content creators have to resort to merchandise and Patreon to survive. They're definitely not giving away anywhere near half of their ad revenue.

> Youtube is so capricious with demonetizing user content that it's become a meme,

Yeah, and this meme is absurd. In what other ad business are advertisers obligated to pay you? Normally when you are trying to sell ads, you have to have a sales team to try to get advertisers to pay you, and it's a constant effort. Creators do not have a right to monetization. If they want monetization, nothing is stopping them from finding their own advertisers and striking their own deals (many creators do exactly this).

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#135

Post by rchaud »

A2017U1 wrote: post #72
xxpor wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet has operated that way forever. Most hosts haven't allowed porn since the beginning of time. You're still free to make your own video hosting website if you'd like. Liveleak still exists.

> You're still free to make your own X It's becoming plainly clear that isn't the case. Liveleak was recently banned in Australia and NZ. Gab extension Dissenter has been banned from both chrome and Firefox app stores despite it self-censoring far more than twitter. Paypal, Stripe and Patreon all deplatform people based on words they have said. I don't agree in the slightest with conservative or far right thought but…

Any content creator takes certain risks when they choose to be a sharecropper on someone else's platform.

Websites being banned in Country X have no impact on my ability to spin up a home web server and publish whatever I want. If I reach a certain volume of users, and let the site become host to people fomenting hate or violence, there's a chance someone might look to take the site down. Depending on the type of website you run, that may be the cost of doing business.

If you think you might be a target for that kind of action, your game plan needs to have fallbacks:

- take personal cheques, gift cards or crypto instead of Patreon/Paypal/Stripe.

- Spend ~2 hours of your time learning how to setup a home server w/ a Raspberry Pi or an old laptop.

- Start transitioning your users towards the decentralized P2P web (Beaker Browser being an example)

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#136

Post by foota »

sametmax wrote: post #84
keiferski wrote: post #19

Frankly, I hope YouTube (and Google in general) dramatically overdo it with the censorship, "curation", and deplatforming of "irresponsible" content, purely so that it forces an independent, non-corporate model to be developed. Having one company be the sole gatekeeper for the overwhelming majority of the web's video content is not a solution.

Because it worked so well for radio, tv and newspapers.

... Yes?

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#137

Post by dageshi »

AWildC182 wrote: post #116
enitihas wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think any new platform is going to be able to compete with YouTube at all with the current regulations. How will any new platform comply with new EU copyright laws, or remove unlawful videos as quickly as YouTube? (e.g the unfortunate New Zealand terrorist attack)

I think this might actually be a good thing long run. Regulation forces decentralization until you reach the equilibrium where playing whack-a-mole ceases to be cost effective. If YT didn't have regulatory capture, the easy answer would be another YT clone startup. Now the solution is a protocol rather than a platform. The protocol can't be made illegal because it's not inherently against the law but if someone uploa…

With very few exceptions the web has flown from decentralised to centralised because centralised is an easier user experience and allows monetisation for content creators, decentralised does not (or at least hasn't so far).

Plus, the people bitching about their content removed from youtube don't want to just be able to upload to youtube they want youtube's audience, they in fact think they're entitled to youtube's audience.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#138

Post by stcredzero »

enitihas wrote: post #96
Mirioron wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't. I suspect that that kind of regulatory capture is the point of these laws in the first place.

I don't think so. Most people ( and a lot of people on HN) really believe that online platforms should be able to suppress such unlawful videos. And it's not a completely unreasonable position.

Most people ( and a lot of people on HN) really believe that online platforms should be able to suppress such unlawful videos.

"Such unlawful videos." So basically, the government should be able to declare content "unlawful" and it's okay so long as public sentiment goes along with it?

Basically, you've simply thrown out Free Speech. I can understand why someone would find the video of the shooting shocking. Personally, I've chosen not to view it. However, if Free Speech isn't an absolute right, then it's simply broken.

Habeas corpus, the Presumption of Innocence, and due process -- what if the government could just suspend those things when it felt like it? Those human rights would simply be broken.

The difference between a just society and an unjust one, is that the just society extends the same rights and protections to all its citizens, no infringements, no exceptions. A society with Free Speech extends the right of speech and the right to read/hear that speech to everyone without infringement as well.

The interesting thing about the Weimar Republic, is that almost all of the laws covering human rights had an "out" for the government, allowing them to suspend the right, "for the common good" in emergency situations. As a result, the subsequent regime didn't have to change many laws to operate as a totalitarian regime.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#139

Post by lilactown »

stronglikedan wrote: post #129
lilactown wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posting videos of death, gore, kiddie porn, targeted bullying, fascist propaganda, trying to incite genocide, rape and other violence. The idea that we should allow sites that are marketed to the general public to be unmoderated is completely ridiculous.

The only things on your list that they should be prohibited by law from showing is kiddie porn, rape, and targeted bullying. People should be able to police themselves from the rest as they see fit, but there's nothing wrong with posting it online.

Yeah, those should be prohibited by law. I think that genocide should also be on that list. And youtube can (and IMO should) continue to prevent the rest. Death, gore, genocide, fascism, violence, etc. do not belong in general public discourse. There's always some other website to post snuff porn.

I don't agree with the way that youtube has applied their guidelines for removing content in general, but I do generally believe that they should moderate their content.

Re: YouTube is trying to reward “quality” content

#140

Post by stcredzero »

AWildC182 wrote: post #116
enitihas wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think any new platform is going to be able to compete with YouTube at all with the current regulations. How will any new platform comply with new EU copyright laws, or remove unlawful videos as quickly as YouTube? (e.g the unfortunate New Zealand terrorist attack)

I think this might actually be a good thing long run. Regulation forces decentralization until you reach the equilibrium where playing whack-a-mole ceases to be cost effective. If YT didn't have regulatory capture, the easy answer would be another YT clone startup. Now the solution is a protocol rather than a platform. The protocol can't be made illegal because it's not inherently against the law but if someone uploa…

The protocol can't be made illegal because it's not inherently against the law but if someone uploads something illegal to their node/whatever, that's on them.

Instead, such protocols can be marginalized through social means and through the media. On top of that, centralized alternatives can be hounded out of business and given the same treatment. YT doesn't have regulatory capture. They have effectively captured the lion's share of mainstream video commentary, with no apparent way for them to ever be replaced.

Post reply on HN