14 ms·

I'm much a proponent of automation as anyone else. But I think right now Google is trying to do something way too hard. By looking for "extremist" material, the

by itaris 9y ago

I'm much a proponent of automation as anyone else. But I think right now Google is trying to do something way too hard. By looking for "extremist" material, they are basically trying to determine the intention of a video. How can you expect an AI to do that?

jmcdiesel 9y ago
I dont think the problem is automation... It's people's expectation for it to be perfect, and the egoic drive to blame someone when something goes wrong. There was no reason for the hype around this story... an AI determinator had a false positive. Thats not google attacking the videos, thats a technical issue and it needs to have zero feelings involved because the entire process happened in a damned computer incapable of feelings... But everyone needs to feed their outrage porn addiction...
- colordrops 9y ago
  It's not a technical issue. Software is not yet capable of accurate content detection, and even if it were, it's not clear whether this sort of thing should be automated. It's not like google can just change a few lines of code and the problem is gone.
  - jmcdiesel 9y ago
    The point is, there will be false positives, there is no reason to get upset and hurt over them... There is no perfect system. If its automated, there will be false positives (and negatives), if there is a human involved, you have a clear bias issue, if there is a group of humans involved, you have societal bias to deal with... There is no perfect system for something like this, to the best answer is to use something like this, that gets it right most of the time... then clean up when it makes a mistake. And you shouldn't have to apologize for the false positive, people need to put on their big boy pants and stop pretending to be the victim when there is no victim to begin with...
    - saurik 9y ago
      This is the exact same argument for "stop and frisk", and that is just totally NOT OK.
      - tree_of_item 9y ago
        It's not the exact same argument because stop and frisk is not automated.
        saurik 9y ago
        If isn't the same process being defended, but I clearlt didn't claim that: the argument used to defend the different processes, however, is the same. This "put on your big boy pants" bullshit is saying that people should accept any incidental harassment because false positives are to be tolerated and no system is perfect, so we may as well just use this one. If the false positives of a system discriminate against a subset of people--as absolutely happens with these filters, which end up blocking people from talking about the daily harassment they experience or even using the names of events they are attending without automated processes flagging their posts--then that is NOT OK. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-facebook-erasing-hate-speech-proves-a-daunting-challenge/2017/07/31/922d9bc6-6e3b-11e7-9c15-177740635e83_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-facebook... https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/07/facebook-censoring-lesbians-using-word-dyke-posts/ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/07/facebook-censoring-lesbi...
      - jmcdiesel 9y ago
        Thats exactly the OPPOSITE of stop and frisk. 1) Stop and frisk is BIASED heavily on race becuase its a HUMAN making the choice... 2) Stop and Frisk is the GOVERNMENT, and therefore actually pushes up against the constitution. How do you see these things are remotely the same?
        saurik 9y ago
        The false positives are not random: they target minorities; these automated algorithms designed to filter hate have also been filtering people trying to talk about the hate they experience on a daily basis. They keep people from even talking about events they are attending, such as Dykes on Bikes. It is NOT OK to tell these people to "put on their big boy pants" and put up with their daily dose of bullshit from the establishment. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-facebook-erasing-hate-speech-proves-a-daunting-challenge/2017/07/31/922d9bc6-6e3b-11e7-9c15-177740635e83_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-facebook... https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/07/facebook-censoring-lesbians-using-word-dyke-posts/ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/07/facebook-censoring-lesbi...
  - ajross 9y ago
    > It's not a technical issue. Software is not yet capable of accurate content detection, Your second sentence is a technical argument, which makes your first a lie. Obviously Google disagreed, which is why they put this system into place. And if they were wrong about that they were wrong for technical reasons, not moral ones. I mean, you can say there's a policy argument about accuracy vs. "justice" or whatever. It's a legitimate argument, and you can fault Google for a mistake here. But given that this was an automated system it's disingenuous to try to make more of this than is appropriate.
    - colordrops 9y ago
      If you just stare at the words and ignore my meaning, sure. But saying this is a technical problem is like saying that climate change is a technical problem because we haven't got fusion reactors working yet.
      - ajross 9y ago
        Then I don't understand what your words mean. Climate change is a technical problem and policy solutions are technical. My assumption was that you were contrasting "technical" problems (whether or not Google was able to do this analysis in an automated way) with "moral" ones (Google was evil to have tried this). If that's not what you mean, can you spell it out more clearly?
        lovich 9y ago
        Is there any problem you wouldn't frame as technical then? If the software isn't anywhere close to capable enough to do this task and YouTube decides to use it anyway that is a management problem. Otherwise literally every problem is technical and we just don't have the software to fix it yet
        ajross 9y ago
        Sure: "Should Google be involved in censoring extremist content?". There's a moral question on exactly this issue. And the answer doesn't depend on whether it's possible for Google to do it or not. What you guys and your downvotes are doing is trying to avoid making an argument on the moral issue directly (which is hard) and just taking potshots at Google for their technical failure as if it also constitutes a moral failure. And that's not fair. If they shouldn't be doing this they shouldn't be doing this. Make that argument.
- megous 9y ago
  Read the article. It says that humans made the final decisions.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  Your whole premise is wrong, because the final decisions were made by humans. But even if they weren't, you're still mistaken. If you write a program to do an important task, it is your responsibility to see that it's both tested and supervised to make sure it does it properly. Google wasn't malicious here, but it was dangerously irresponsible.
- firmgently 9y ago
  From the article: "Previously we used to rely on humans to flag content, now we're using machine learning to flag content which goes through to a team of trained policy specialists all around the world which will then make decisions," a spokeswoman said..."So it’s not that machines are striking videos, it’s that we are using machine learning to flag the content which then goes through to humans." "MEE lodged an appeal with YouTube and received this response: 'After further review of the content, we've determined that your video does violate our Community Guidelines and have upheld our original decision. We appreciate your understanding.' Humans at YouTube made the decisions about removing videos. Then, on appeal they had a chance to change their minds but instead confirmed those decisions. Then, because of public outcry, YouTube decided it had been a mistake. 'The entire process happened in a damned computer incapable of feelings' is inaccurate.
- white-flame 9y ago
  [Disclaimer: I'm not a youtuber, so my knowledge is only 2nd hand] Aside from but related to this story, many people are making a living off of YouTube ad revenues, and the AI is unpredictable in how it will respond in terms of promoting your video content on the front page, as links from other popular videos, and so forth. I think it's also unknown how the AI categorizes the content appropriateness of videos to advertisers, which if categorized the wrong way leaves your stuff unmonetizable. Basically, people are throwing video content up, but have no way to properly have a feedback loop to gauge whether or not they violate the "proper" protocols that the AI rewards. This really is a problem of automation using (presumably) trained statistical rules where nobody really knows what specifically influences the decisions about their videos.
- nthcolumn 9y ago
  It is the People's expectation that it be perfect. Once they have determined that there is something badly wrong going on in the video destroying it is a violation of U.S. Code § 1519 (destroying evidence with intent). They had better have backups.
Dirlewanger 9y ago
Doesn't matter, it's already out in the wild. This year so far, tons of channels whose videos have had ads for years are being instantly demonetized without explanation. If even one word from a video's title, one tag is on their "controversial" shitlist, it's SOL. Knowing YouTube's track record with this stuff, they will continue to be silent and not give a shit. Content creators that don't produce content for 5 year-olds need to start looking somewhere else than YouTube.
- Fej 9y ago
  YouTube is the only option. Smart businesspeople (i.e. most channels over 500k or even 200k subs) have alternate sources of revenue, mainly sponsorships but also Patreon.
  - fao_ 9y ago
    It's almost like you forgot Vimeo
    - Dirlewanger 9y ago
      But Vimeo isn't, and doesn't want to be, YouTube.
    - tomc1985 9y ago
      Oh god please no
    - Fej 9y ago
      I didn't forget Vimeo. YouTube is so dominant that, since everyone else is on YouTube, uploading videos elsewhere is career suicide. No one will switch websites or apps to watch just one creator's content. One of the keys to YouTube's success is its sub feed. All the videos from all my favorite channels, all in one place. It's extremely convenient. People tend to take the path of least resistance.
- notananthem 9y ago
  I mean its also youtube so .. who cares
anotherbrownguy 9y ago
The demonetization effort is too targeted and obvious to be explained by "AI did it". If AI did it, they could undo it after appeal which they don't.
sbov 9y ago
The AI doesn't seem to remove them though, it just flags them for human review. In theory, these humans should be the ones determining intent.
- duskwuff 9y ago
  And in this case, there should probably be a separately trained group of reviewers to carefully examine these videos. Not the same group that's quickly checking over videos to see if they're pornographic, for instance.
  - mc32 9y ago
    I think most of their review ops are in Manila, PH, no? It'd take some time to get them up to speed on that...
    - jtmcmc 9y ago
      the highest level are in the US
    - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
      Why do you believe that to be the case?
    - vacri 9y ago
      O_o
      - vacri 9y ago
        What am I missing here? How is the openly racist GP comment not pounded into the gray? Or flagged?
        CaptSpify 9y ago
        How is their comment openly racist?
Raphmedia 9y ago
But is Youtube really the right platform for such videos? It's a platform made to host videos in order to put advertiser's ads on them. When I think "raw war videos", I think of Liveleak.
- devrandomguy 9y ago
  For many users, Youtube is the only video publishing site, and many people get their news through YT. Very few people are aware of the existence of LiveLeak; it is an ineffective platform for spreading awareness.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - tekromancr 9y ago
    Agreed. I don't click liveleak links if I don't feel like watching someone get murdered on camera. So, basically, I don't click liveleak links.
    - aaron-lebo 9y ago
      Would you prefer to stumble across those on Youtube? It seems better that material which needs to be kept for history and remained uncensored due to advertising is on a site dedicated to that instead of a site which most people use for videos of recipes, memes, and great football headers.
      - devrandomguy 9y ago
        Yeah, there does need to be some sort of inhibition against highly traumatizing content, it should certainly not be promoted to people who do not seek it out. But purging news videos of statues being destroyed and ancient buildings being demolished, is going too far.
      - megous 9y ago
        This is a solved problem. Flag it and it will get behind a confirmation screen asking you if you're really sure to view the video.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nsxwolf 9y ago
Basically every YouTuber I follow has complained about having videos demonetized this week. Subjects ranging from video game reviews to body dysmorphic disorder. It really seems they've bitten off more than their machine learning algorithms can chew here.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
DINKDINK 9y ago
>How can you expect an AI to do that? Machine Learning is just a way to launder bias. What will be defined as extremist by US companies will favor the West but discounting Western extremism and overplay non-Western extremism.

by itaris 9y ago

jmcdiesel 9y ago

I dont think the problem is automation... It's people's expectation for it to be perfect, and the egoic drive to blame someone when something goes wrong. There was no reason for the hype around this story... an AI determinator had a false positive. Thats not google attacking the videos, thats a technical issue and it needs to have zero feelings involved because the entire process happened in a damned computer incapable of feelings... But everyone needs to feed their outrage porn addiction...

colordrops 9y ago
It's not a technical issue. Software is not yet capable of accurate content detection, and even if it were, it's not clear whether this sort of thing should be automated. It's not like google can just change a few lines of code and the problem is gone.
- jmcdiesel 9y ago
  The point is, there will be false positives, there is no reason to get upset and hurt over them... There is no perfect system. If its automated, there will be false positives (and negatives), if there is a human involved, you have a clear bias issue, if there is a group of humans involved, you have societal bias to deal with... There is no perfect system for something like this, to the best answer is to use something like this, that gets it right most of the time... then clean up when it makes a mistake. And you shouldn't have to apologize for the false positive, people need to put on their big boy pants and stop pretending to be the victim when there is no victim to begin with...
  - saurik 9y ago
    This is the exact same argument for "stop and frisk", and that is just totally NOT OK.
    - tree_of_item 9y ago
      It's not the exact same argument because stop and frisk is not automated.
      - saurik 9y ago
        If isn't the same process being defended, but I clearlt didn't claim that: the argument used to defend the different processes, however, is the same. This "put on your big boy pants" bullshit is saying that people should accept any incidental harassment because false positives are to be tolerated and no system is perfect, so we may as well just use this one. If the false positives of a system discriminate against a subset of people--as absolutely happens with these filters, which end up blocking people from talking about the daily harassment they experience or even using the names of events they are attending without automated processes flagging their posts--then that is NOT OK. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-facebook-erasing-hate-speech-proves-a-daunting-challenge/2017/07/31/922d9bc6-6e3b-11e7-9c15-177740635e83_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-facebook... https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/07/facebook-censoring-lesbians-using-word-dyke-posts/ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/07/facebook-censoring-lesbi...
    - jmcdiesel 9y ago
      Thats exactly the OPPOSITE of stop and frisk. 1) Stop and frisk is BIASED heavily on race becuase its a HUMAN making the choice... 2) Stop and Frisk is the GOVERNMENT, and therefore actually pushes up against the constitution. How do you see these things are remotely the same?
      - saurik 9y ago
        The false positives are not random: they target minorities; these automated algorithms designed to filter hate have also been filtering people trying to talk about the hate they experience on a daily basis. They keep people from even talking about events they are attending, such as Dykes on Bikes. It is NOT OK to tell these people to "put on their big boy pants" and put up with their daily dose of bullshit from the establishment. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-facebook-erasing-hate-speech-proves-a-daunting-challenge/2017/07/31/922d9bc6-6e3b-11e7-9c15-177740635e83_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-facebook... https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/07/facebook-censoring-lesbians-using-word-dyke-posts/ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/07/facebook-censoring-lesbi...
- ajross 9y ago
  > It's not a technical issue. Software is not yet capable of accurate content detection, Your second sentence is a technical argument, which makes your first a lie. Obviously Google disagreed, which is why they put this system into place. And if they were wrong about that they were wrong for technical reasons, not moral ones. I mean, you can say there's a policy argument about accuracy vs. "justice" or whatever. It's a legitimate argument, and you can fault Google for a mistake here. But given that this was an automated system it's disingenuous to try to make more of this than is appropriate.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    If you just stare at the words and ignore my meaning, sure. But saying this is a technical problem is like saying that climate change is a technical problem because we haven't got fusion reactors working yet.
    - ajross 9y ago
      Then I don't understand what your words mean. Climate change is a technical problem and policy solutions are technical. My assumption was that you were contrasting "technical" problems (whether or not Google was able to do this analysis in an automated way) with "moral" ones (Google was evil to have tried this). If that's not what you mean, can you spell it out more clearly?
      - lovich 9y ago
        Is there any problem you wouldn't frame as technical then? If the software isn't anywhere close to capable enough to do this task and YouTube decides to use it anyway that is a management problem. Otherwise literally every problem is technical and we just don't have the software to fix it yet
        ajross 9y ago
        Sure: "Should Google be involved in censoring extremist content?". There's a moral question on exactly this issue. And the answer doesn't depend on whether it's possible for Google to do it or not. What you guys and your downvotes are doing is trying to avoid making an argument on the moral issue directly (which is hard) and just taking potshots at Google for their technical failure as if it also constitutes a moral failure. And that's not fair. If they shouldn't be doing this they shouldn't be doing this. Make that argument.
megous 9y ago
Read the article. It says that humans made the final decisions.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
Your whole premise is wrong, because the final decisions were made by humans. But even if they weren't, you're still mistaken. If you write a program to do an important task, it is your responsibility to see that it's both tested and supervised to make sure it does it properly. Google wasn't malicious here, but it was dangerously irresponsible.
firmgently 9y ago
From the article: "Previously we used to rely on humans to flag content, now we're using machine learning to flag content which goes through to a team of trained policy specialists all around the world which will then make decisions," a spokeswoman said..."So it’s not that machines are striking videos, it’s that we are using machine learning to flag the content which then goes through to humans." "MEE lodged an appeal with YouTube and received this response: 'After further review of the content, we've determined that your video does violate our Community Guidelines and have upheld our original decision. We appreciate your understanding.' Humans at YouTube made the decisions about removing videos. Then, on appeal they had a chance to change their minds but instead confirmed those decisions. Then, because of public outcry, YouTube decided it had been a mistake. 'The entire process happened in a damned computer incapable of feelings' is inaccurate.
white-flame 9y ago
[Disclaimer: I'm not a youtuber, so my knowledge is only 2nd hand] Aside from but related to this story, many people are making a living off of YouTube ad revenues, and the AI is unpredictable in how it will respond in terms of promoting your video content on the front page, as links from other popular videos, and so forth. I think it's also unknown how the AI categorizes the content appropriateness of videos to advertisers, which if categorized the wrong way leaves your stuff unmonetizable. Basically, people are throwing video content up, but have no way to properly have a feedback loop to gauge whether or not they violate the "proper" protocols that the AI rewards. This really is a problem of automation using (presumably) trained statistical rules where nobody really knows what specifically influences the decisions about their videos.
nthcolumn 9y ago
It is the People's expectation that it be perfect. Once they have determined that there is something badly wrong going on in the video destroying it is a violation of U.S. Code § 1519 (destroying evidence with intent). They had better have backups.

Dirlewanger 9y ago

Doesn't matter, it's already out in the wild. This year so far, tons of channels whose videos have had ads for years are being instantly demonetized without explanation. If even one word from a video's title, one tag is on their "controversial" shitlist, it's SOL. Knowing YouTube's track record with this stuff, they will continue to be silent and not give a shit. Content creators that don't produce content for 5 year-olds need to start looking somewhere else than YouTube.

Fej 9y ago
YouTube is the only option. Smart businesspeople (i.e. most channels over 500k or even 200k subs) have alternate sources of revenue, mainly sponsorships but also Patreon.
- fao_ 9y ago
  It's almost like you forgot Vimeo
  - Dirlewanger 9y ago
    But Vimeo isn't, and doesn't want to be, YouTube.
  - tomc1985 9y ago
    Oh god please no
  - Fej 9y ago
    I didn't forget Vimeo. YouTube is so dominant that, since everyone else is on YouTube, uploading videos elsewhere is career suicide. No one will switch websites or apps to watch just one creator's content. One of the keys to YouTube's success is its sub feed. All the videos from all my favorite channels, all in one place. It's extremely convenient. People tend to take the path of least resistance.
notananthem 9y ago
I mean its also youtube so .. who cares

anotherbrownguy 9y ago

The demonetization effort is too targeted and obvious to be explained by "AI did it". If AI did it, they could undo it after appeal which they don't.

sbov 9y ago

The AI doesn't seem to remove them though, it just flags them for human review. In theory, these humans should be the ones determining intent.

duskwuff 9y ago
And in this case, there should probably be a separately trained group of reviewers to carefully examine these videos. Not the same group that's quickly checking over videos to see if they're pornographic, for instance.
- mc32 9y ago
  I think most of their review ops are in Manila, PH, no? It'd take some time to get them up to speed on that...
  - jtmcmc 9y ago
    the highest level are in the US
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    Why do you believe that to be the case?
  - vacri 9y ago
    O_o
    - vacri 9y ago
      What am I missing here? How is the openly racist GP comment not pounded into the gray? Or flagged?
      - CaptSpify 9y ago
        How is their comment openly racist?

Raphmedia 9y ago

But is Youtube really the right platform for such videos? It's a platform made to host videos in order to put advertiser's ads on them. When I think "raw war videos", I think of Liveleak.

devrandomguy 9y ago
For many users, Youtube is the only video publishing site, and many people get their news through YT. Very few people are aware of the existence of LiveLeak; it is an ineffective platform for spreading awareness.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- tekromancr 9y ago
  Agreed. I don't click liveleak links if I don't feel like watching someone get murdered on camera. So, basically, I don't click liveleak links.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Would you prefer to stumble across those on Youtube? It seems better that material which needs to be kept for history and remained uncensored due to advertising is on a site dedicated to that instead of a site which most people use for videos of recipes, memes, and great football headers.
    - devrandomguy 9y ago
      Yeah, there does need to be some sort of inhibition against highly traumatizing content, it should certainly not be promoted to people who do not seek it out. But purging news videos of statues being destroyed and ancient buildings being demolished, is going too far.
    - megous 9y ago
      This is a solved problem. Flag it and it will get behind a confirmation screen asking you if you're really sure to view the video.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

nsxwolf 9y ago

Basically every YouTuber I follow has complained about having videos demonetized this week. Subjects ranging from video game reviews to body dysmorphic disorder. It really seems they've bitten off more than their machine learning algorithms can chew here.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

DINKDINK 9y ago

>How can you expect an AI to do that? Machine Learning is just a way to launder bias. What will be defined as extremist by US companies will favor the West but discounting Western extremism and overplay non-Western extremism.