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

241–250 of 256 posts

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#241

Post by alexasmyths »

emsy wrote: post #239
jacksmith21006 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

"That isn't quite fair to the creators either."

It's fair if it's clear and applied reasonably consistently.

Google makes completely arbitrary moral judgements about 'advertising guns' - which I might support, but they are arbitrary.

With this - it's about advertisers interests, not Googles.

If Coca Cola et. al. don't want their ads jammed into CardiB rapping about her vagina, her butt, your python, and her vagina again - well that's Coke's prerogative. Surely.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#242

Post by rpenm »

ankushnarula wrote: post #139
bufferoverflow wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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). An alarming number of social justice advocates have been equating words with violence. Canadian Bill C-16 (now law) is particularly troubling because under the Ontario Human Rights Code it makes debate over gender neutral pronouns a punishable offense. It seems to me that the folks at YouTube are, necessarily, responding with the most "c…

C-16 just adds gender identity to the list of identities you're already not permitted to discriminate or advocate violence against (race, color, ethnicity, religion, age, sex, disability). It does not prohibit debate over pronouns. Go read it: http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-as...

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#243

Post by CaptSpify »

chiaro wrote: post #63
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…

They have a pretty clear set of guidelines for what counts as controversial. I think they do a good job of circumscribing the worst of what they've been funding up to this point, without being too overreaching.

This is entirely untrue. Just search for "youtube" in HN's search and you'll see articles describing how inconsistent, inaccurate, and overreaching they've been.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#244

Post by CaptSpify »

tzs wrote: post #214
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…

> Google et all would rather impose their bizarrely puritanical morality on the world, than do their jobs and build a system that actually works. I'm having a bit of trouble with the idea that something that is generating around $80 000 000 000 per year revenue and has been growing ~20% per year for the last several years is not something that "actually works".

It's the filtering that isn't working, not the platform

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#245

Post by CaptSpify »

jacksmith21006 wrote: post #224
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.

Who says the other provider needs to use advertising?

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#246

Post by CaptSpify »

jacksmith21006 wrote: post #223
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.

A competitor doesn't have to use advertisers

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#247

Post by marshray »

notyourday wrote: post #222
majewsky wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Great interview article posted yesterday on this exact topic with an actual practitioner:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15901628

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#248

Post by ugh123 »

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.)

>e.g. religious videos of any sort are automatically deemed controversial

Thats not what it says. It reads "Content promoted by extreme religious groups" - Certainly there is subjectivity here and Google should provide clearer guidelines on what is deemed "extreme" (clearly violent jihad and isis recruiting would be considered extreme, and general islam/muslim content should be considered okay).

But it clearly does not say "religious videos of any sort".

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#249

Post by patrickaljord »

freeone3000 wrote: post #178
patrickaljord wrote: post #87

What I don't understand is why don't they allow advertisers to accept showing their ads on these more explicits videos? They were ok with it for a decade but all of sudden they're not? I'm sure most non-American brands would be ok with it, even many American brands would be ok with it. I'm sure Google has the ability to add such a simple feature to their video ad platform (it's basically a checkbox with a boolean tha…

The advertisers themselves saying they don't want their ads shown on this content.

All millions of them? I know Amazon still advertizes on Breitbart and they're one of the biggest advertisers in the world.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#250

Post by sctb »

douglaswlance wrote: post #69
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…

Until you realize the people filling out this form are purple haired, hairy-armpit militant feminists and soyboy beta Bronies.

If you won't stop breaking the guidelines by posting unsubstantive comments we'll ban the account.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN