3 ms·

They introduced a new "restricted" mode that removes many LGBT-related videos from search results: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/20/lgbt-comm

They introduced a new "restricted" mode that removes many LGBT-related videos from search results: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/20/lgbt-community-anger-over-youtube-restrictions-which-make-their-videos-invisible https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/20/lgbt-comm... This mode would obviously take them out of ad impressions as well.

Buge 10y ago
Restricted mode was released in 2010 so it's not new. It's an opt-in setting and only 1.5% of people use it. Compare that to the percent of people using ad blockers. https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2017/03/restricted-mode-how-it-works-and-what.html https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2017/03/restricted-m... For people who can't stand inappropriate videos, the alternative is not using youtube altogether, which would be even worse for ad revenue. So introducing restricted mode helps ad revenue. Obviously whether the creator of a video is LGBT or not should not affect restriction, and it appears youtube might be breaking that. But the affect is quite small because very few people use restricted mode.
- Already__Taken 10y ago
  It's also the only thing schools have got now they removed youtube for schools. We just force restricted on and block anything extra the old fashioned way.
aqp 10y ago
Right, turning on restricted mode removes many LGBT-related videos - and includes many too. It's a hard problem for a computer to figure out which LGBT videos to keep in restricted mode. A video called "I'm gay, here's how I do my hair and makeup" is probably okay. A video called "Look at this gay hair and makeup!" is probably being used for bullying if it's getting passed around at a school that uses restricted mode.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  If it's a hard problem that might result in classing as objectionable a historically oppressed group of people, then maybe don't do it? The problem is that YouTube wants to have its cake and eat it too, pretending that they care about social issues, while really being willing to do anything for their bottom line.
  - Buge 10y ago
    Every classification system has false positives and false negatives. Just because something is blocked, doesn't mean it's objectionable. And it especially doesn't mean that the person who created the video is objectionable. The alternatives are: schools completely block youtube, preventing kids from getting a lot of information, including LGBT information. Or creating an opt-in restricted mode that will inevitably have false positives, blocking kids from seeing some portion of the information. At least in the second case kids have access to a portion of the LGBT information.

Buge 10y ago

Restricted mode was released in 2010 so it's not new. It's an opt-in setting and only 1.5% of people use it. Compare that to the percent of people using ad blockers. https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2017/03/restricted-mode-how-it-works-and-what.html https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2017/03/restricted-m... For people who can't stand inappropriate videos, the alternative is not using youtube altogether, which would be even worse for ad revenue. So introducing restricted mode helps ad revenue. Obviously whether the creator of a video is LGBT or not should not affect restriction, and it appears youtube might be breaking that. But the affect is quite small because very few people use restricted mode.

Already__Taken 10y ago
It's also the only thing schools have got now they removed youtube for schools. We just force restricted on and block anything extra the old fashioned way.

aqp 10y ago

Right, turning on restricted mode removes many LGBT-related videos - and includes many too. It's a hard problem for a computer to figure out which LGBT videos to keep in restricted mode. A video called "I'm gay, here's how I do my hair and makeup" is probably okay. A video called "Look at this gay hair and makeup!" is probably being used for bullying if it's getting passed around at a school that uses restricted mode.

alphonsegaston 10y ago
If it's a hard problem that might result in classing as objectionable a historically oppressed group of people, then maybe don't do it? The problem is that YouTube wants to have its cake and eat it too, pretending that they care about social issues, while really being willing to do anything for their bottom line.
- Buge 10y ago
  Every classification system has false positives and false negatives. Just because something is blocked, doesn't mean it's objectionable. And it especially doesn't mean that the person who created the video is objectionable. The alternatives are: schools completely block youtube, preventing kids from getting a lot of information, including LGBT information. Or creating an opt-in restricted mode that will inevitably have false positives, blocking kids from seeing some portion of the information. At least in the second case kids have access to a portion of the LGBT information.