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

61–70 of 256 posts

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#61

Post by SerLava »

kw71 wrote: post #53
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is appreciated, but keep in mind that these are people's livelihoods. They're in a vulnerable position, and change is a big deal for them. Fairly small changes to the YouTube landscape could mean major changes to their income and business viability. Change a few bits of a suggestion algorithm and the kid making $11 million per year playing with toys could be out of business overnight. It's the same reason…

The fact that those people chose or happened to make a living off someone else's website doesn't give them employment rights. Unfortunately the platform is property of YouTube and while I think it would be nice for them to explain their rules when they invite the public to engage and participate, they are allowed to hold these as trade secrets :(

You misunderstand. They all know there's no right to use YouTube. It's just that if they can't make money, people will stop making good shit and it will hamper or kill the whole platform.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#62

Post by lc5G »

hkmurakami wrote: post #24
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…

Aren't algorithms also biased in theory since they are created by people?

While algorithms can be biased intentionally or unintentionally, it is not true that ALL algorithms HAVE to be biased because they are created by people.

In machine learning it might be easier to unintentionally create biased algorithms. On the other hand there are domains where I would trust algorithms to be less biased than people.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#63

Post by chiaro »

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…

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.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#64

Post by fragmede »

icebraining wrote: post #22
toomanybeersies wrote: post #20

These rules seem incredibly strict, in a way that could seriously limit original content. If I was to make a show similar to Trailer Park Boys, about a bunch of comedic stoners bumbling around and swearing a bunch, it would be demonetized. Trailer Park Boys is a good example, since it's a show that you could produce on a minimal budget and try to launch on Youtube.

I wonder if they could get outside sponsorship. Many creators show ads (sorry, "sponsorships") in their own video, outside of YouTube's ad system. Apparently YouTube has been saying they want the advertiser to pay for YT ads on the channel, but if the videos are demonatized, I wonder if that still holds?

Outside sponsorship is explicitly prohibited by section 4 of YouTube's TOS.

"YouTube creators can not include promotions, sponsorships or other advertisements for third party sponsors or advertisers in their videos where YouTube offers a comparable ad format" https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3364658?hl=en

(Patreon, as a way to make money as a YouTube creator occupies a gray area but this restriction hampers their potential for growth since YouTube could just shut them down.)

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#65

Post by kilburn »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #33
icebraining wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what advertiser wants to spend their time selecting videos to put their ads on? I don't see how your solution would be accepted. And automatic categorization doesn't work - otherwise Google wouldn't be spending money on humans.

Automatic detection of curse words and nudity does work, as far as I know. The regular categorization should be left to the publishers, but it should be much wider and multilevel, not the current choice of, what, 10 categories? Yes, other things like hate speech are harder to detect, but, as I said, it's extremely subjective, and should not be dealt with in a general way, but rather broken down into subcategories, li…

> Automatic detection of curse words and nudity does work, as far as I know.

I don't know about nudity, but I can assure you that automatic detection of curse words doesn't work. Enable automatic subtitles and watch a few videos... do you think that's working?

Also, youtube is not english-only, and automated processing of anything other than english is even worse!

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#66

Post by musage »

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…

Where would this fit in?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R5w-PIzlUk

It's a clip-art style "coloring video" drawing a baby with a lot of syringes, which then each empty their colored liquid into the baby. Technically, perfectly innocent. In context of a positive flood of videos with an undertone ranging from brain damaging to abusive targeted at little kids it doesn't seem that innocent to me. The sum isn't larger than the whole, but it's larger than each individual piece seen in a vacuum. However, where to draw the line? I would draw the line at "if it targets little kids, demonetize it", not even because of the content of such videos, simply because I think marketing to little kids is immoral no matter in what context, but I know that's not going to fly. But there could be a category for it, and then people could check out which advertisers advertise to little kids and let that inform their wallet voting.

For me, YT is just totally ruined anyway. Yeah I still watch videos on it, 99% of the video material on the web is on YT, but even using an ad-blocker what used to feel lame now feels positively fucked up considering how horribly bad YT has handled this before it blew up as well as after advertisers started retracting ads. I want to turn my back on it for good, and if we can't find a way to self-host and directly pay what we watch, I'll find a way to live without video on the web.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#68

Post by icebraining »

fragmede wrote: post #64
icebraining wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if they could get outside sponsorship. Many creators show ads (sorry, "sponsorships") in their own video, outside of YouTube's ad system. Apparently YouTube has been saying they want the advertiser to pay for YT ads on the channel, but if the videos are demonatized, I wonder if that still holds?

Outside sponsorship is explicitly prohibited by section 4 of YouTube's TOS. "YouTube creators can not include promotions, sponsorships or other advertisements for third party sponsors or advertisers in their videos where YouTube offers a comparable ad format" https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3364658?hl=en (Patreon, as a way to make money as a YouTube creator occupies a gray area but this restriction hampers…

It's not that simple: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/154235

You can't splice an actual ad into the video (although channels do, and they haven't been banned), but you can have outside sponsorship. I believe stuff like vloggers cooking using a meal kit sponsored by the company is OK.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#69

Post by douglaswlance »

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.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#70

Post by Sujan »

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.

It’s not even about removing the content - but just not showing ads on it.
Post reply on HN