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

221–230 of 256 posts

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#221

Post by jacksmith21006 »

mizzack wrote: post #204
ugh123 wrote: post #51

I don't see the issue. Google is curating their platform and trying to remove as much un-original and reasonably offensive content. The doc also didn't seem to contain any political leanings or cultural shifters. I believe much of this is part of the service agreement on Youtube. Only issue I see here is the manual review process and subjectivity baked into that.

Completely disagree about there not being any political leanings. See the Controversial section here: https://i.imgur.com/vkBrkns.jpg e.g. religious videos of any sort are automatically deemed controversial (way more inclined to be right leaning), but videos about racial justice (left) are exempt (unless, of course, they are anti-racial justice videos, in which case they must be removed.)

You realize this for ads not the content to be in YT. I do not see anything that could be considered leaning right or left.

You seem to come to this with a bias that Google is left leaning and why you see a political leaning situation here. I am a centrist and do not.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#222

Post by notyourday »

majewsky wrote: post #201
notyourday wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not flawed at all. If you cannot provide a validation for your algorithm decisions when challenged then you algorithm belongs in a research lab or on your laptop, not in production.

Okay, then your argument is valid... in a different layer of reality. Meanwhile, everyone and their dog are rolling out blackbox neural net classifiers to production

And i cannot wait until one of these companies ends up in court trying to explain why its engineers cannot explain how a decision was made.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#223

Post by jacksmith21006 »

CSMastermind wrote: post #180

I wish Youtube had a real competitor to stop them from doing things like this.

How would it be different? Google is subject to what is comfortable for the advertisers and putting these rules in place which seem fair.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#224

Post by jacksmith21006 »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #106

I know some people are happy about this happening because currently the demonetisation matches their own beliefs/politics/dislikes. What happens though if this is outsourced out from Americans doing the moderation to cheap labour in other nations that don't share your beliefs or politics. If one thing is clear it's that we need competition in this space.

Any other provider would have the same issues with advertisers.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#225

Post by Pharaoh2 »

ntuch wrote: post #207
rfdub wrote: post #203

The thing I really, really don't get about modern media companies (IE. YouTube, Facebook, etc.) and their approach to advertising is their almost universally puritanical policies. I mean I get it to a point, they're trying to mitigate the risks of someone getting offended and suing them or something, but at the same time its such a lazy and one size fits all approach. They have all this data about people, yet they're…

>use that data to show the right ads to the right people To expand on what you're saying here, YouTube allows offended people to bully them by contacting advertisers and saying things like, "YouTube is putting ads for your company in front of videos about hitler!!" And YouTube just immediately caves to that. YouTube's response from day one should have been, "no, we don't put ads in front of videos, that's not how thi…

Except that hitler video is now making money from the pepsi ad. And its not far fetched to say that pepsi is giving money to creators of that video and when pepsi exec find out that that is a thing, they will want to shut it down asap.

PR is not a logical thing because people aren't logical, they are emotional and in that context your logic doesn't mean anything...

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#226

Post by jacksmith21006 »

emsy wrote: post #75
alexasmyths wrote: post #11

Seems very pragmatic to me. Actually "If people feel uncomfortable watching it in public" is vague but reasonably good guideline. It has to be nary impossible to draw the line in so many cases, but the guidelines seem reasonable and the line will roughly get drawn about there.

So if I'm uncomfortable to watch a video in public about, let's say "How to avoid getting STDs", which is clearly something me and probably a lot of people would benefit from, it should be demonetized?

If advertisers do not wanted be associated with the content then yes. This is all about advertisers. YT cost money to run and that money comes from advertisers.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#227

Post by Tarq0n »

jacksmith21006 wrote: post #212
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.

Wrong. Google still has the expense of serving the video without the ad revenue. They do not benefit but instead the exact opposite.

Google might still incur a net benefit from keeping viewers on their platform where they'll also watch monetized videos.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#228

Post by spyder »

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…

Yea, I don't see how this is different from the public guidelines: https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/policies/#community-guideli...

The problem is the demonetization of the videos that don't break the guidelines. I'm guessing it comes from the poor automated detection and not from the human reviewers.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#229

Post by mizzack »

jacksmith21006 wrote: post #221
mizzack wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely disagree about there not being any political leanings. See the Controversial section here: https://i.imgur.com/vkBrkns.jpg e.g. religious videos of any sort are automatically deemed controversial (way more inclined to be right leaning), but videos about racial justice (left) are exempt (unless, of course, they are anti-racial justice videos, in which case they must be removed.)

You realize this for ads not the content to be in YT. I do not see anything that could be considered leaning right or left. You seem to come to this with a bias that Google is left leaning and why you see a political leaning situation here. I am a centrist and do not.

Yes I am aware what demonetization means. It's a very effective way to get people to stop producing content that does not align with Youtube/Alphabet/their advertiser's values.

The problem here is the looseness of the guidelines and the complexity of navigating deep issues with nuance.

Entertain me here for a second... Let's talk about a few hypothetical videos:

"The positive contributions of undocumented migrants in the US" - positive content about immigrants. Exempt from demonetization per the guidelines.

"The problem with illegal immigration in the US" - antagonism of a specific group of people/xenophobia per the guidelines. Should be demonetized.

Now, do you think it's an unreasonable position to say that undocumented immigration has both pros and cons? Of course not, everything does.

Youtube's distillation of rules that only allow for discussion of one side these issues with zero nuance is the problem. Coincidentally or not, the allowed positions for discourse align with the brand's corporate values.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#230

Post by pixl97 »

simion314 wrote: post #174
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.

I think the way you responded caused your downvotes not the point you made. Google is not paying the creators for uploading a video, then you can upload 100 videos a day and get money, the creator gets payed only if ads run on the video but if the video runs ads then Google also gets payed, so me creating a popular video and running ads on it will make Google money. I suspect Google is afraid of detailing why a video…

> because bad people could adapt and not use those words but other equivalent, but this hits hard on good creators and frustrates them

A bad actor will try to find the limits to your system 10,000 times. A good actor will give up and go elsewhere. When everybody loses the bad actor will gain more perspectively.

Post reply on HN