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

231–240 of 256 posts

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#231

Post by debacle »

jacksmith21006 wrote: post #215
debacle wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem is the outcome. If you demonetize a video by accident, and then "fix" it, you've effectively killed up to 90% of the youtuber's income from that video. Many youtubers get most of their views within the first 48 hours of posting a video. This impacts people who post a video <1/wk the most, because one demonetized video can mean a huge hit to their monthly income. Now you're driving out higher producti…

That is true but it also hurts Google. So Google is not a bad actor. It is unfortunate and hopefully Google can figure out a way to change.

I would not be shocked if Google was not at 100% ad fill, especially considering how much I see their own products being advertised.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#232

Post by Eridrus »

rkapsoro wrote: post #173

My take on the demonetization controversy is that it is too coarse: the output is a boolean, is it advertiser friendly or not so, to say nothing of the preferences of individual advertisers. To me it seems that even assuming the current single set of criteria for advertiser friendliness (with all of the other problems discussed in the other comments regarding subjectivity) that different advertisers might or might no…

Other comments in this thread indicate that there is a friendliness bit, but most advertisers are risk averse.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#233

Post by oh-kumudo »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #25
rayalez wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The solution is obvious - tag/categorize the videos, according to very strict rules, let the advertisers decide which tags to serve. Allow the publishers to dispute the tags. For instance, "nudity" can be defined as "visible genitals, female nipples" in the US. "Controversial" tag should not even exist, it makes no sense, any non-trivial subject is controversial. And honestly, YouTube can benefit from a more precise…

> The solution is obvious - tag/categorize the videos, according to very strict rules, let the advertisers decide which tags to serve. Allow the publishers to dispute the tags

Tagging would use the same ML model that youtube is current running for demonetization, so there will be error as well.

Problem here lies with the expectation, it aims with recall not precision. In other words, false negatives really hits Youtube's image, twice already this year. People only needs to find a handful problematic videos with misplaced ads and claim Youtube had some major problem, which might not be case behind the scene. Yet each time it becomes major media parade on bashing the company and result in an exodus of advertisers.

If the goal is to eliminate false positives, which means less tolerance and stronger censorship, it will hurt a lot of innocent Youtubers, regardless. The crisis lies however with Youtube's model, if they cannot do a good job, no matter by algorithm or by human, managing the balance between quality and quantity of videos on their platform while keeping the advertisers happy and assured, it is just a matter of time, Youtube would ultimately degraded into our era's little television.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#234

Post by crankylinuxuser »

Tarq0n wrote: post #227
jacksmith21006 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's precisely it.

"Social Media", be it facebook empire, twitter, twitch, google empire, amazon empire...

They want mindshare. They want people to keep using it, millions of people. Because the bigger the number, the more they can use various ways to entrap people into those platforms.

People keep saying that a demonetized video costs - the trivial bandwidth and storage of a deindexed video is miniscule. Yet, making people think they're the only game in town is all encompassing. You deal with them and their games and give them content, or you go away.

And not only that, but when people put up videos, they're also giving Google/Alphabet free machine vision content. Which that is actually worth quite a bit because content's hard to just generate.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#235

Post by josteink »

fortythirteen wrote: post #181
randyrand wrote: post #88

"Any language intended to spread hate." Could that be any more vague? Does encouraging people to hate DRM or hate cancer count under that? Clearly not. So what does 'hate' even have to do with it? Really its because "Hate speech" in and of itself is a dumb phrase. AFAIK It only refers to an incredibly small subset of hate. It does not refer to hate. And often refers to mean-speech instead of referring to the emotion…

"Hate speech" isn't a dumb phrase, it's a newspeak phrase perfectly designed for its purpose - to strike fear in the heart of anyone accused of it, and for it to be spoken with an undeserved sense of self-evidence. You'll not find anyone outside of the "anyone who disagrees with my political opinions is inherently evil" group using it.

Put more bluntly “hate speech” is a term constructed exclusively to justify censorship against any group the political left disagrees with.

Anyone using it hates actual democracy.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#236

Post by alexasmyths »

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?

" it should be demonetized?"

I don't see why PSA should be being 'monetized'.

I don't see why Coca Cola should be forced to pay for ads during this program.

This is not 'banning or censoring videos' - this is basically 'deciding which bits of content advertisers want to pay for'.

Different game.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#237

Post by emsy »

alexasmyths wrote: post #236
emsy wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

" it should be demonetized?" I don't see why PSA should be being 'monetized'. I don't see why Coca Cola should be forced to pay for ads during this program. This is not 'banning or censoring videos' - this is basically 'deciding which bits of content advertisers want to pay for'. Different game.

>I don't see why PSA should be being 'monetized'.

That's irrelevant to the argument.

>I don't see why Coca Cola should be forced to pay for ads during this program.

I didn't say that and I haven't picked up that argument anywhere else really. I merely refuted your argument that something "comfortable to watch" is a good metric for this program. I came up with this example off the top of my head. And you would find a lot of suitable advertisers for this kind of content as well.

Please stick to the original argument, that "comfortable to watch" is a good metric instead of strawmanning me with censorship and forced payments.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#238

Post by dogma1138 »

PeterStuer wrote: post #197
dogma1138 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be great until you reach Saudi Arabia or Iran, or heck don't need to go that far since Venezuela is just near by...

So you are saying it would not be ok for those cultures to impose their morals, but it is ok for the US?

Moral relativism is nonsense, there are objectively better and worse moral systems.

The US and any other country in the world is far from perfect but it doesn’t mean there aren’t better and worse, much much worse moral systems out there today.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#239

Post by emsy »

jacksmith21006 wrote: post #226
emsy wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And eyeballs for advertisers come from content. For example Laci Green has up to several million views on her videos. So she pulls a lot of people onto the platform. But because sex ed is "uncomfortable" she shouldn't be able to monetize? That isn't quite fair to the creators either. (I'm talking about the general moral juxtaposition, not Google's interests)

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#240

Post by alexasmyths »

emsy wrote: post #237
alexasmyths wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" it should be demonetized?" I don't see why PSA should be being 'monetized'. I don't see why Coca Cola should be forced to pay for ads during this program. This is not 'banning or censoring videos' - this is basically 'deciding which bits of content advertisers want to pay for'. Different game.

>I don't see why PSA should be being 'monetized'. That's irrelevant to the argument. >I don't see why Coca Cola should be forced to pay for ads during this program. I didn't say that and I haven't picked up that argument anywhere else really. I merely refuted your argument that something "comfortable to watch" is a good metric for this program. I came up with this example off the top of my head. And you would find a…

"I don't see why PSA should be being 'monetized'. That's irrelevant to the argument."

It's relevant because we are discussing which videos can and cannot be monetized - some are not intended to be monetized.

"comfortable to watch" - is actually a perfect way to communicate a complex and nuanced issue, in a simple way to various audiences - internal, operational, close ad partners, long tail ad partners.

It reasonably summarizes the otherwise reasonable policy.

And yes - someone talking about explicit sexual subjects for whatever reason definitely falls in that category, because advertisers would be weary of it. Google wants it that way for obvious reasons, and it seems like it's working.

Finally - there is nothing to report here. It's great that we get some insight, but this has to be a fairly naive view of 'insider reporting'. There is no story. Google has a reasonable policy for determining which content is good for ads, in general, and which is not. They seem to be acting professionally on it. This is people doing their jobs reasonably well especially with nuanced things.

If this story were about content removal or censoring, it would be a different discussion.

Post reply on HN