91–100 of 256 posts
Youtube for me is being plagued by the above videos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 th…
Since the number of categories is limited, even if large, there will always be weird videos that don't strictly fit into any category. It's a slippery slope argument, it doesn't mean we shouldn't organize information better. This particular video can be under Art > Drawing > Coloring I don't see anything damaging about it. Yes, it's weird, but so what?
http://www.tubefilter.com/2017/11/24/advertisers-suspend-you...
> I don't see anything damaging about it. Yes, it's weird, but so what?
So you don't, probably not having looked at thousands of video descriptions and thumbnails on hundreds of channels featuring bondage, pregnant children, adults and children impregnated after having been drugged, dolls in bath tubs filled with things, objects and persons under car wheels and feet, drinking urine and eating poop, dominance and submission, binge eating of candy or just objects, objects being removed from a body or lumps removed by getting a syringe, babies faking their death, adults and kids with pacifiers, maggots, people being eaten, limbs being removed, unresolved tension, and dozens of other concepts [you see, that stands for something, there is just no space to expand all placeholders, just like when I said "flood" or "targeted at little kids"] repeated ad nauseam, across live action, claymation, 2D and 3D "art", all underlaid with the same handful of music and audio samples, produced on all continents except Africa maybe. So what?
Like many forms of abuse, e.g. mobbing or sexual harassment, each individual act can be explained away, and people who don't really look into things just see the one-off "weird thing". So what?
Then there's all the stuff that's neither here nor there, like making people jealous by drawing a heart on someone's belly, or a million "finger songs", or "Jony Jony Yes Papa". That's how babies learn colors. It's just copycats that experiment with the medium while not straying from the script that doesn't exist.
And of course, it's just the brains of toddlers, those aren't sponges or anything, and quite obviously, if it's not traumatizing to you, there can be no damage. We know that even "just" too much lack of healthy interaction can stunt development, but what's millions of hours of low-effort, "weird" content gonna do?
Anyways, I'm not here to tell you how you live your life, I'm just stating how I live mine. If you're not at work and not easily grossed out, maybe enjoy this 0.01% slice: https://i.imgur.com/MziRRQw.jpg -- but that's still just images, that's without the deceptive music and channel descriptions that advertise themselves as great entertainment for kids. And you can always find something there or in the ElsaGate subreddit that can serve as lightning rod, to say oh, this is overreacting, let's dismiss it all out of hand.
Many people have been conditioned to believe "MRAs" ( men's right's activists ) are in the same category as misogynists. Unfortunately.
MRA's have a handful of very specific grievances against laws, not women.
Their key issue is custody and visitation rights of their children. While much of the world is biased against women, family courts are heavily biased against men.
Just as women deserve to have their equality addressed, men have the right to fight for visitation and custody of their children.
YouTube's policies of supporting women's equality but not men's have had a threatening effect on men's groups trying to communicate to the public the need for equality. Most men don't find out until it's too late.
Specifically a group called "The Honey Badgers", in Canada, has been struggling to communicate their message of equality.
MRA's have several other equality issues such as ending circumcision and addressing high suicide, addiction and homelessness rates of men, but these are not misogynist ideas, merely health and fairness ones.
Stick up for men. It doesn't mean you hate women at all!
I don’t understand what the term “demonetization” means in this context. When a video is flagged for “demonetization” what are the immediate consequences? I’ve never actually met anyone who got paid for something that happened on YouTube, so I just don’t understand how the business side of YouTube even works. For the life of me, all I’ve ever directly witnessed is the occassional friend who received a DMCA notice, be…
It means the video won't have ads and thus the creator won't earn any money from ads. It's very difficult to make a lot of money from YouTube ads, but some people are doing it and getting "demonetized" really hurts them.
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…
I'd be surprised if YouTube didn't account for this, or in other words, if they made the demonetization decision indeed dependent on a single person.
I'd actually expect them to look for this bias, and filter out the reviewer, for example: reviewer X has consistently flagged videos that a number of other reviewers have cleared, etc.
Edit: perhaps a better example:
For any sample of 100 videos, ensure that 5 videos (5%) are from a pool of videos pre-approved by some gremium.
If a reviewer flags more than X (X being 1 to 5, however strict you want to be) of these pre-approved videos, there is a high probability that this reviewer exhibits a strong bias, so you discard that reviewer's selection.
I don't see any problems with these rules in particular (I would prefer something less strict but we're talking America here), my problem is with all the seemingly innocent videos by people like EEVBlog that are purely noncontroversial tech stuff that gets instaflagged for no apparent reason. The manual review isn't the problem it's the initial algorithm that robs creators of all the views in the initial week(s) befo…
He can be culturally insensitive at times. I don't know if to the point that I would flag him as violating the rules, but then again these people were instructed that if in doubt flag. As the father of a daughter I'm am very much aware that he can be sexist at times. In fact this is why although I will occasionally watch one of his videos I am no longer subscribed to the channel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You mean that if there is no direct economic incentive people will stop contributing to a generally available pool of content/IP? That does explain why open source software died off when no one could figure out how to make money from it...
You can think whatever you want about RMS rants about Java, but he and FSF sure did paid attention to the fact, that they must control everything, turtles all the way down, as much as possible. Otherwise, just one proprietary, non-replaceable layer in the stack, and the layer owner can control you.
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…
Same problem as with AI bias.
A great video about this problem: The Trouble with Bias - NIPS 2017 Keynote - Kate Crawford - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMym_BKWQzk
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…
> The real problem with these rules is subjectivity. Something you would consider offensive is probably not from my perspective. I'd be surprised if YouTube didn't account for this, or in other words, if they made the demonetization decision indeed dependent on a single person. I'd actually expect them to look for this bias, and filter out the reviewer, for example: reviewer X has consistently flagged videos that a n…
