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

YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

twitlonger.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 256 posts

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#151

Post by deadbunny »

musage wrote: post #92
bufferoverflow wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the number of categories is limited, even if large, there will always be weird videos that don't strictly fit into any category. It's a slippery slope argument, it doesn't mean we shouldn't organize information better. This particular video can be under Art > Drawing > Coloring I don't see anything damaging about it. Yes, it's weird, but so what?

> “We are shocked and appalled to see that our adverts have appeared alongside such exploitative and inappropriate content,” said a Mars spokesperson in a statement. “We have taken the decision to immediately suspend all our online advertising on YouTube and Google globally. Until we have confidence that appropriate safeguards are in place, we will not advertise on YouTube and Google.” http://www.tubefilter.com/2017/…

Your entire argument is "won't somebody think of the children".

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#152

Post by jbob2000 »

jbardnz wrote: post #107

Maybe this is real, but it doesn't seem to line up with what I have heard from other Youtubers. Firstly it is almost certain that a video is initially demonetized by an algorithm. Only during a manual review is it looked at by a human. The main complaint from Youtubers is that the algorithm is way too strict and inconsistent. But the manual review process is pretty fair and the vast majority of videos get remonetized…

They are probably using the manual reviewers to train an ML model to look for these things. It's going to take some time, but I think it's possible to get the models to match the manual reviewers.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#153

Post by musage »

deadbunny wrote: post #151
musage wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “We are shocked and appalled to see that our adverts have appeared alongside such exploitative and inappropriate content,” said a Mars spokesperson in a statement. “We have taken the decision to immediately suspend all our online advertising on YouTube and Google globally. Until we have confidence that appropriate safeguards are in place, we will not advertise on YouTube and Google.” http://www.tubefilter.com/2017/…

Your entire argument is "won't somebody think of the children".

Argument for what? For me personally being turned off from YT for good? Heh. If you think thinking of those who can't defend themselves yet is some sort of no-no, then that is your "entire argument". In the end, I don't care what simplification you use as your personal lightning rod, it's your life. If you were a friend, you would have been for the longest time - as it is, no biggie.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#154

Post by daemin »

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.

> Advocating murder of group X -> ban (even if you're quoting a religious text).

I would say that this should not be banned. Let all who profess these beliefs be out there in the open so that they are easier to find.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#155

Post by Navarr »

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…

They should probably have different demonetization strategies in different cultures. "This video is demonetized in USA" for example.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#156

Post by rtpg »

devit wrote: post #146

I don't really understand why advertisers would have a problem with "objectionable content" (obviously excluding fradulent websites that might be faking ad views). If someone is viewing the content, they presumably like it, so there doesn't seem to be any difference compared to people viewing advertisement on "non-objectionable" content. If someone else sees the content along with the advertisement, they can just tru…

If you advertise on a video, you are giving the creator of the video money.

There is no stronger endorsement.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#157

Post by Goronmon »

deadbunny wrote: post #151
musage wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “We are shocked and appalled to see that our adverts have appeared alongside such exploitative and inappropriate content,” said a Mars spokesperson in a statement. “We have taken the decision to immediately suspend all our online advertising on YouTube and Google globally. Until we have confidence that appropriate safeguards are in place, we will not advertise on YouTube and Google.” http://www.tubefilter.com/2017/…

Your entire argument is "won't somebody think of the children".

You do realize that sometimes it's actually acceptable to be concerned for the well-being of children?

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#158

Post by crankylinuxuser »

mdwrigh2 wrote: post #132
crankylinuxuser wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No idea why they don't have a whitelist for channels with 10 years of a spotless record. Give it 30 seconds of thought, and it'll be blindingly obvious. "Google/Alphabet doesnt have to pay them for the content now." My question, why do they keep using a platform that's screwing them over? Yippee: -3. Evidently stating the emperors new clothes are his birthday suit is bad/wrong.

> "Google/Alphabet doesnt have to pay them for the content now." When a video is demonetized, only a small subset of advertisers or no advertisers can be shown on that video. If no ads are being shown then neither Google nor the creator are making money (and Google is spending money to host and serve the content), so really this is a lose/lose for both of them.

Yes, and demonetized also de-indexes from search and hides the video unless directly shared.

AvE has been dealing with this very issue, where he'd upload a new vid, and within an hour, demonetized. It would within 1 day go unindexed. And for those who don't know, the first 48 hours is when most views come in. So, no ads = no money. He figured out if you make the video unindexed, then it would be demonet'ed. Then he would argue, and monet would be turned on. And then he'd make it public.

AvE got sick of that, and moved to Patreon, and then releases videos telling people to install Adblocks to stop youtube ads. (Pateron's had its own recent scandal https://blog.patreon.com/updating-patreons-fee-structure/ - Ive been seeing quite a few artists and customers move away from that platform. Where will they go? Who knows.. I digress.)

But to a larger point, storage space is near-zero cost. Bandwidth over a video that's unindexed is ~=0. And if unindexed stale video happens to go away, aww gee shucks. Google keeps the mindshare as being the only videosite in town, and starves any upstarts with their monopoly of videosite/ad/search proficiency.

Tl;Dr: Google is a very bad actor here.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#159

Post by notyourday »

strangecasts wrote: post #150
notyourday wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may get a different network from a same dataset. You will get a different result if you let two humans classify the data.

Not "may" but will - it's very easy to render your network essentially unauditable (you don't have thousands of petabytes' worth of storage available? you can't fab your own ML coprocessor? too bad!) You bring up Trump's Twitter suspension in the other subthread, but in that case the failure was transient, and the person responsible and their reasoning were quickly identified; YouTube has demonetized videos with litt…

> Not "may" but will - it's very easy to render your network essentially unauditable (you don't have thousands of petabytes' worth of storage available? you can't fab your own ML coprocessor? too bad!)

Google can. So that does not apply.

> You bring up Trump's Twitter suspension in the other subthread, but in that case the failure was transient, and the person responsible and their reasoning were quickly identified; YouTube has demonetized videos with little to no explanation or recourse.

There's no recourse or explanation because it is not youtube's business model regardless of what/who makes a decision to demonetize them. Adding arbitrary human behavior to those decisions only makes it worse.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#160

Post by falcolas »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #127
matt4077 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You didn't read carefully enough. I said "advocating murder". So no, a lecture or a simple quotation wouldn't result in anything.

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die"

Post reply on HN