YouTube going full thought police.

[Deleted]

member when youtube wasnt owned by google.

[Deleted]

member when youtube wasnt owned by google.

Yeah it was awful.

[Magical Mudcrab]

<...snip...>

So people are basically getting up in arms because Youtube is beginning to roll-out ML algorithms to help filter/flag content that might be offensive or against their ToS to both better improve their user/advertiser's experiences and avoid fines (such as the regulatory penalties levied against Facebook recently)?

- - - Updated - - -

member when youtube wasnt owned by google.

You mean the one year gap from 2005-2006 in which they did not innovate, make any meaningful updates, and basically allowed the platform to stagnate with little support...?

[Deleted]

So people are basically getting up in arms because Youtube is beginning to roll-out ML algorithms to help filter/flag content that might be offensive or against their ToS to both better improve their user/advertiser's experiences and avoid fines (such as the regulatory penalties levied against Facebook recently)?

- - - Updated - - -



You mean the one year gap from 2005-2006 in which they did not innovate, make any meaningful updates, and basically allowed the platform to stagnate with little support...?

and when the message to "broadcast yourself" actually mattered.

[Adam Jensen]

I'm just curious. How many right ring sites or what you consider right wing sites ban free speech from the left? I know reddit had the owner changing speech. Twitter has banned right wing speakers from speaking, but has left up radical BLM post, and Antifa talking about violence on others being left up, and the list goes on.

Come to think about it has we all know the left has been known to use violence to try and get it's point across. Just look at Milo and Berkeley. Has the right ever rioted when they don't get their way? At least here in America. I'm sure you're going to try and bring up the Nazi's like they have anything to do with right leaning ideologies, which to be honest as a right leaning person agree with any of the Nazi platform.

Well this is what happens when the right wing becomes a haven for fanatics.

And yeah, the lefties are the violent ones. Unlike the right wing who simply tried to take over a wildlife refuge . . .

Go learn Django and JavaScript and build your own website if you don't like youtube so much. Oh wait, your side is trying to kill Net Neutrality which would make it near impossible for your own start ups to get a foot in the door.

[Ryme]

So Fox News should be forced to give a weekly show to Hillary Clinton? After all , it's a private company with an immense amount of influnce in day to day lives.

Least you have an alternative in something like MSNBC. YouTube doesn't have viable alternative, it's like having only one channel on your TV.

[Deleted]

You mean the one year gap from 2005-2006 in which they did not innovate, make any meaningful updates, and basically allowed the platform to stagnate with little support...?

They also gave videos traffic on the basis of how much traffic they already had. Pointless videos with sexy girl thumbnails were everywhere.

[Redroniksre]

Do people really support Google using an AI to filter out things that it considers to be hate speech? Give that their Ai has ALWAYS been so exact, never once has it given out false DMCA or flagging videos for no reason? Or are those people just forgetful of the past and willfully ignorant.

[Deleted]

and when the message to "broadcast yourself" actually mattered.

No, it didn't.

Whatever else may be wrong with google they do a good job extracting quality content and giving it a shot against clickbait spam.
They also pay creators generally, albeit very very little, which is still more than before, which was nothing.

The original founders lucked out by exploiting the copyright laws so that they couldn't be held accountable for people mass uploading the Simpsons. They had no vision for the company at all.

[Ryme]

You can't have it both ways. The group of idiots that claim YouTube is a private company is, at least in part, also part of the group that claims the Internet should be considered a public utility. If you have one, you cannot have the other. If the Internet is to be considered a public utility (vital to the sustainment, or some derivative thereof) then YT must conform to Governmental regulation, including free speech requirements. If YT is to remain private, then the argument for the Internet being a public utility falls apart for the same reason.

This is something I often consider as well. Since we don't work with any anti-monopoly laws on the type of website available, gigantic ones like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook etc have entire markets cordoned off.

If we accept that the internet should be a public utility then should these sites to be under scrutiny of monopoly laws, which sounds like a fucking nightmare to work out, or perhaps they should be beholden to standardised regulation. But what regulation do we go with? YouTube, for example, is available in hundreds of countries all with varying laws that would affect it - which laws do we choose? Do we need a standardised law of the internet? How would that even work?

There's no simple solution in my eyes.

[helebelemon]

Do people really support Google using an AI to filter out things that it considers to be hate speech? Give that their Ai has ALWAYS been so exact, never once has it given out false DMCA or flagging videos for no reason? Or are those people just forgetful of the past and willfully ignorant.

Intriguing thought process you have there. We can break this down to a more classical statistical learning application. Suppose you are looking for potential cancer patients. For the sake of the domain--for the sake of increasing the number of true positives, are you willing to increase the amount of false positives and amend classifications in the decision process?

You can take that and apply it to hate speech, terrorism, whatever. Realistic people would prefer not to die than to have a small distraction in their experience.

[Redroniksre]

Intriguing thought process you have there. We can break this down to a more classical statistical learning application. Suppose you are looking for potential cancer patients. For the sake of the domain--for the sake of increasing the number of true positives, are you willing to increase the amount of false positives and amend classifications in the decision process?

You can take that and apply it to hate speech, terrorism, whatever. Realistic people would prefer not to die than to have a small distraction in their experience.

If it was a few false positives here in there that would be one thing, but with Youtube it never is, their systems tend to be easily exploited and very inaccurate. Not to mention those "extremist" videos aren't killing anyone, more or less just uncomfortable.

[Zmaniac17]

Of course you do, why else say it - and I still don't agree with you.

I didn't know how to say that without insulting you, so I put that qualifier. I'm sorry. I guess it didn't work. If you would like to explain why you disagree with what I'm saying I would find that interesting.

I suppose you could argue that you're paying with your view and look at views as a form of currency. But where the actual cash changes hands is between the two companies involved, not the user.

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlike...e_the_product/

[Narwal]

Is this youtube machine learning the same kind of technology that spawned other AI softwares that had to be taken down within days because they became extremely radical from a human mentality stand-point. Just watch, within days youtube ai is going to rebrand the youtube site into some type of helicopter sliding scale gender based clown with 3 sets of reproductive organs including male, female, and horse.

[Theodarzna]

I recall Barack Obama in a speech with Angela Merkel once said the Internet had become a "disruptive force" in the world. And that the implications of the speech were that the internet needed to become curated to ensure that it no longer disrupted.... well.... whatever Obama was implying it was disrupting.

I think this is the culmination of those words. Not that Obama and Merkel hatched some secret plot, but that "Power" has decided it needs to regain control over what people see, think and here, and thus controlling and censoring the internet via vast monopolies is favorable. Dissenting voices are simply disruptive to their progressive narrative view of the world, it disturbs their comforting "Arc of History."

[Noxx79]

I recall Barack Obama in a speech with Angela Merkel once said the Internet had become a "disruptive force" in the world. And that the implications of the speech were that the internet needed to become curated to ensure that it no longer disrupted.... well.... whatever Obama was implying it was disrupting.

I think this is the culmination of those words. Not that Obama and Merkel hatched some secret plot, but that "Power" has decided it needs to regain control over what people see, think and here, and thus controlling and censoring the internet via vast monopolies is favorable. Dissenting voices are simply disruptive to their progressive narrative view of the world, it disturbs their comforting "Arc of History."

Merkel said that, not Obama, and if you actually read what she said, she was comparing the internet to things like the printing press where it was a transformational invention that society struggled with handling what they can, should, and should not do.

And that likely is translated from German, which whatever word was translated to disrupted may or may not have the same nuance in English.

[Theodarzna]

Merkel said that, not Obama, and if you actually read what she said, she was comparing the internet to things like the printing press where it was a transformational invention that society struggled with handling what they can, should, and should not do.

More aptly, States and what one could nebulously call "Power" struggled to deal with the sudden free flow of information as either new classes gained access to information or the ability to spread their messages and counter-signal the prevailing narrative most comfortable to that "Power". Merkel's suggestion is a nice coating on that same complaint, she recognizes the internet counter-signals against the narrative that would be most amicable to what she and other members of the ruling classes wish to do.

[Toogoodman]

That mean all those videos about Flat-Earth, Faked Lunar Landing, and other such "fun" videos will be removed?

Hopefully all the truther bullshit gets removed, i can stand reading comments of people that have that low of an IQ.

[turboether]

It sets an unhealthy precedent if corporations can have the power to remove trains of thought from the internet on a giant like Youtube.

[McTroll]

Speaking of thoughts, here's one.

If youtube's going in "full thought police" mode, then what in the world is MMO-C?