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

YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 305 posts

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#281

Post by Mehdi2277 »

flavius29663 wrote: post #122
at_a_remove wrote: post #110

I think the "oh no human moderation would cost us too much" defense is a distraction. It's a good one, because it is working, but it is still a distraction. Let us suppose we have a program which checks for orthodoxy according to the YouTube Terms of Service against each video submitted. Nothing but a lack of having done the work prevents YouTube from adding to its "rejected" flag the following: 1) A list of timestar…

That will never work. If you tell the user exactly what they did wrong, they will keep trying by changing very little in the original video until it gets past bots, but still keeps the illegal or "forbidden" message. I think youtube should not be allowed to remove videos for their content unless for legal reasons. Meaning it's a violation of the law, in which case they have to send the information to the police as we…

My experience having worked at content platforms on ml (so fb, tiktok, snap) the largest motivation for content removal is content that general audience would be uncomfortable with. Pornographic content is the easiest example. Should a video platform be required to show porn? Some platforms allow it with tagging others avoid it entirely and often try to remove gray things like promiscuous videos.

Another big area is political content and how much of it to allow. A lot of people complain on hyperpartisan news content and fake news. How to moderate it is very platform dependent with some wanting to restrict a lot of it and others leaning to allow almost anything.

Also I’d be extremely surprised if youtube has no human moderation. My experience has always been a mix of human and ai moderation. Facebook has like tens of thousands of contractors paid for moderation. They still use a lot of ai on top of that.

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#282

Post by ehsankia »

doublejay1999 wrote: post #268
ehsankia wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have reason to believe it can be done better than how Youtube does it? Again, there are two approach: 1. Limit who can post content You'll end up with only the powerful being able to push content, you're taking the voice away from the masses. 2. Try to gradually improve content moderation and live with the rare false-positives or false-negatives. This is the current approach, and while not perfect, I personall…

I dont think it could be done better much better than youtube aat the scale youtube does it, but i would insist they need to be plugged in to existing national media regulators and bound by the same standards- flawed as they are. > You'll end up with only the powerful being able to push content, you're taking the voice away from the masses. i think the algorithms already do that. the channels with the most followers…

> the channels with the most followers have the loudest voice

Sure, but I don't people people are entitled to have their videos promoted for them. The fact that you can have your video hosted for free, and share it to anyone in the world is already great enough. While on average louder voices get the most attention, plenty of smaller creators have managed to get important messages out.

> drowing in shills and scammers

That seems like a hyperbole? Do you honestly feel this way browsing Youtube or Twitter? I'm not saying they don't exist but they're fairly rare in my experience.

> more community centric model

I agree, reddit's model works kinda well. Youtube has tried that in the past (though I guess they got rid of it?), and Twitter is experimenting with it now (Birdwatch). I also like the Facebook supreme court model for handling edge cases.

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#283

Post by manicdee »

water8 wrote: post #105
indigochill wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Federation is the answer at scale. You need dictatorship for effective moderation. But you also want those dictatorships small, uniform, and interchangeable so that the "citizens" of those dictatorships can easily pick the one that suits them best. Those dictatorships link up (federate) with like-minded dictatorships to benefit from network effects of sharing their content among themselves. If your content doesn't su…

Or you could just be mature and not need to suck on the teat of authoritarianism and learn to tolerate offensiveness.

Or you could be mature and realise that the reason everyone in your pub is a Nazi is that you never said “no” to the first Nazi sympathiser, after which all the non-Nazis left. What is merely offensive to you is a persistent death threat to lots of other people.

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#284

Post by manicdee »

BrianOnHN wrote: post #143
jrumbut wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The algorithm can exist, but to run it at scale requires buildings and large teams and bank accounts and therefore the companies that use these algorithms are susceptible to regulation. Otherwise it seems like an enormous waste of talent and resources playing cat and mouse, when we can just give them guidelines and fairly often they'll be followed. Of course bad actors can exist, but that's not a reason to give up on…

> give up on social solution to problems Everything is a trade-off. Sure humans can be used for moderating spam. I'd prefer if they performed real social work, instead.

I’d prefer if people realised that moderating YouTube was social work, and not suitable for an algorithms-only approach.

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#286

Post by Sephr »

Zenst wrote: post #115

Odd, more so given a whole video is upon YT about this from 2017. https://youtu.be/Oh4WURZoR98

Note that this video was originally taken down for the same supposed ToS violation: https://twitter.com/vanhoefm/status/927612810984677376

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#287

Post by lillecarl »

qayxc wrote: post #254
lillecarl wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have any data to back this up, but i believe of those 2500 videos per minute, 2450 or so the AI could classify them as safe, not requiring human interaction. The other 50 are classified on a scale from 0 to 100 on a badness scale. The ones closer to "not that bad" (ToS and such) gets put through automatically waiting for a review. The illegal content (rape, gore, child porn) and such gets blocked automaticall…

But how would that help with complaints, ContentId and copyright claims, though? The problem isn't the automated review process, the problem is complaints and disputes. Even if only 1% of all videos had any issues of this sort at all, that'd still be 25 complaints per minute about the most complex topic in media no less - copyright law and fair use. The problem lies in the asymmetry - bots and automated flagging camp…

And right now it's essentially impossible to be heard by a human, which is the problem. They don't have enough humans employed.

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#288

Post by jobigoud »

anticensor wrote: post #187
foepys wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tech is very special in a way where they can get away with claiming that quite a lot is not possible at their scale. Imagine this for other industries. "We cannot do quality control before sending products out. We make too much stuff." "We don't check all tickets for the venue. Too many people." "Cleaning the entire building is not possible. It's too much space."

"We don't check all tickets for the venue. Too many people." This happens in some public transport operators already.

It's argued that in some cities public transport systems the price of the ticket doesn't cover the cost of its own infrastructure, the machines to buy them, the ones to validate them the salaries of the agents verifying, etc. It can be more cost effective to drop the concept of ticket and make it a free public service.

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#289

Post by freebuju »

derivagral wrote: post #219
freebuju wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a creator gets kicked out however, their livelihood is threatened No. There are numerous providers that can host your videos. For a small fee. This mentality is what gives Google such pseudo-power.

At the end of the day, I'd guess this is less about alternatives and more about youtube being the best platform for your investment. Hosting isn't the problem, its the audience and traffic (and ad monetization from your vids.) Do the alternatives hold up in terms of things like market reach, $ performance, and not banning the same users?

If Youtube was to go away today, do the guys who upload videos on this platform stop being content creators?

This is myth I want to dispell.

Now to answer your question. Yes, it will be tough and disruptive should you start distributing your content through other alternatives if you were using youtube as your only vehicle. But similar issues were faced by other content creators such as musicians, journalists when the streaming era started disrupting their vehicles. They adapted. Don't see why video content creators shouldn't be able to find the same flexibility and continue to thrive. Youtube by itself with no content does not have anything to sell.

Infact, relying only on a single platform can be dangerous for creators since we've seen some of them being booted off by AI. No human explanations.

Audience, traffic, monetization, reach are all market problems. They will exist whether Youtube is there or not.

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#290

Post by anticensor »

jobigoud wrote: post #288
anticensor wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We don't check all tickets for the venue. Too many people." This happens in some public transport operators already.

It's argued that in some cities public transport systems the price of the ticket doesn't cover the cost of its own infrastructure, the machines to buy them, the ones to validate them the salaries of the agents verifying, etc. It can be more cost effective to drop the concept of ticket and make it a free public service.

I agree with all that, but some central governments such as Turkey go to great lengths to make public transport a paid service. The best public transport is the free one indeed.
Post reply on HN