YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

Post by DoreenMichele » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 7:00 AM UTC

bufferoverflow wrote: post #12

rayalez wrote: post #6

I have a feeling that the internet will get outraged about this for one reason or another, but just from looking at this, it actually seems like a sensible policy designed to keep YouTube out of trouble. Nothing extreme or unfair, just avoiding to show ads next to stuff advertisers would not want to see their ads next to, while also making an effort to avoid offending or censoring youtubers. Probably won't be flawles…

The real problem with these rules is subjectivity. Something you would consider offensive is probably not from my perspective. In the end it will be a moderator bias galore. I can easily see a Christian mod demonetizing atheist videos, democrat republican, prude free, etc etc etc. I'd like to see a true free speech platform with violence/nudity sectioned off according to the local laws, and then let the advertisers d…

Post by PeterStuer » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 7:19 AM UTC

Post by bufferoverflow » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 7:21 AM UTC

rayalez wrote: post #16

bufferoverflow wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem with these rules is subjectivity. Something you would consider offensive is probably not from my perspective. In the end it will be a moderator bias galore. I can easily see a Christian mod demonetizing atheist videos, democrat republican, prude free, etc etc etc. I'd like to see a true free speech platform with violence/nudity sectioned off according to the local laws, and then let the advertisers d…

That makes sense. The problem is that at the end of the day the decision will have to be made either by algorithms or by people. Algorithms are less nuanced, hard to write, and will often fail, people are expensive and biased. With the amount of videos youtube has to process, and without an almost human-level AI, I don't think there's a perfect solution. Algorithms flagging videos for review, and then humans making d…

Post by AnkhMorporkian » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 7:29 AM UTC

justboxing wrote: post #4

awakeasleep wrote: post #2

Does anyone have any idea about why these rules would be secret? The only thing I can think of is that YouTube is not confident in their guidelines & categorization, and does not want to defend these choices publicly.

> any idea about why these rules would be secret? Don't work for youtube, but I'm guessing they would be secret for a couple of reasons. 1. If made public, people could post violating content and work around it by making sure they won't get flagged with carefully crafted thumbnails, content etc. Ex: Take a look at the 'Nudity' section. There are examples of 'Partial nudity' in which a guy wearing underwear is deemed…

Post by bufferoverflow » Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 7:38 AM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #21

bufferoverflow wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem with these rules is subjectivity. Something you would consider offensive is probably not from my perspective. In the end it will be a moderator bias galore. I can easily see a Christian mod demonetizing atheist videos, democrat republican, prude free, etc etc etc. I'd like to see a true free speech platform with violence/nudity sectioned off according to the local laws, and then let the advertisers d…

There is no real solution for that. Even the legal system flip-flops periodically. We have a Supreme Court as final arbiter of these judgement calls, but there is no means to completely escape the issue of human subjectivity influencing human judgement calls.