9 ms·

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 dis

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 tagging/category system, it's currently extremely crude.

aestetix 9y ago
I think a better solution is to have some core principles that Youtube's censorship team abides by. If the video in question doesn't violate all the principles (or X number of them), then it remains up. Of course that is difficult and actually involves discussions, which Youtube doesn't seem interested in having.
- pr0zac 9y ago
  There is zero censorship involved here. This isn't a leak about deciding what gets taken down, its about what is able to be monetized. The leak in fact specifically mentions this choice was used to avoid censorship by removing video.
freeflight 9y ago
Afaik they already thought of that solution because YouTube videos support tagging/categories but it's the video uploader who sets those tags. The problem is that once you introduce such a system, and leave all the control over the tags to the uploader, people start gaming it for better search rankings/more views. So you are back to the same old problem of "who checks if the content actually matches the tags".
- awiesenhofer 9y ago
  I think in bufferoverflows solution the tags come from algorithms and user reports not the publisher.
amarkov 9y ago
Strict rules for tagging would just run into the same problems as strict rules for demonetization. LGBT groups won't be any happier to see their content publicly branded "sexually explicit" than just demonetized.
- bufferoverflow 9y ago
  By strict rules I also mean objective and unbiased. Penis/vagina -> nudity (even if it's medical or educational). "Fuck" -> cursing (even if it's about the etymology of the word). Advocating murder of group X -> ban (even if you're quoting a religious text). If these rules are strict and clear, we have a chance of creating a legal-like system. Otherwise it's subjective chaos with everyone pissed off.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    So a lecture quoting from the Old Testament, or an atheist quoting its worst parts, would get banned under your regime? Because, at least for the first three examples, you are explicitly including meta-discussions of the subject. It's impossible to create an "objective" standard. Because what you want to rate is meaning, and meaning is subjective, based on context and intent. One of history's most famous photos is of a fully nude girl, maybe 8 or 9 years old. It makes no sense to stick any labels to such an image without considering the context it was created in, and the cultural significance it has.
    - bufferoverflow 9y ago
      You didn't read carefully enough. I said "advocating murder". So no, a lecture or a simple quotation wouldn't result in anything.
      - matt4077 9y ago
        No, I read with plenty of care. Which is why I asked you to clarify why meta-discussions are included for the first three examples, but not the last. I'd also posit that it's impossible to define a clear distinction between a "lecture quoting a text advocating murder" and actually advocating murder. Just as it is impossible to just say penis->nudity, without losing the vast difference in meaning and effect from a photo of Michelangelo's David to hardcore pornography. That's because, fundamentally, there just is no such clear delineation. Give me any two photos including a penis, and I'll give you one that is more offensive than one, yet less offensive than the other. The tech community loves to ignore the long history of these problems, and denigrates everything that can't be expressed as a smart contract as "biased" or "subjective". But that's ok... In less than 200 years we'll have a great algorithm who will finally render the definitive test of what's porn and what's art: "I'll know it when I see it".
musage 9y ago
Where would this fit in? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R5w-PIzlUk 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.
- bufferoverflow 9y ago
  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?
  - GrayShade 9y ago
    For context, see https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/9/16629788/youtube-kids-distrubing-inappropriate-flag-age-restrict https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/9/16629788/youtube-kids-dis...
  - musage 9y ago
    > “We are shocked and appalled to see that our adverts have appeared alongside such exploitative and inappropriate content,” said a Mars spokesperson in a statement. “We have taken the decision to immediately suspend all our online advertising on YouTube and Google globally. Until we have confidence that appropriate safeguards are in place, we will not advertise on YouTube and Google.” http://www.tubefilter.com/2017/11/24/advertisers-suspend-youtube-elsagate/ 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 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.
oh-kumudo 9y ago
> 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 Tagging would use the same ML model that youtube is current running for demonetization, so there will be error as well. Problem here lies with the expectation, it aims with recall not precision. In other words, false negatives really hits Youtube's image, twice already this year. People only needs to find a handful problematic videos with misplaced ads and claim Youtube had some major problem, which might not be case behind the scene. Yet each time it becomes major media parade on bashing the company and result in an exodus of advertisers. If the goal is to eliminate false positives, which means less tolerance and stronger censorship, it will hurt a lot of innocent Youtubers, regardless. The crisis lies however with Youtube's model, if they cannot do a good job, no matter by algorithm or by human, managing the balance between quality and quantity of videos on their platform while keeping the advertisers happy and assured, it is just a matter of time, Youtube would ultimately degraded into our era's little television.

aestetix 9y ago

I think a better solution is to have some core principles that Youtube's censorship team abides by. If the video in question doesn't violate all the principles (or X number of them), then it remains up. Of course that is difficult and actually involves discussions, which Youtube doesn't seem interested in having.

pr0zac 9y ago
There is zero censorship involved here. This isn't a leak about deciding what gets taken down, its about what is able to be monetized. The leak in fact specifically mentions this choice was used to avoid censorship by removing video.

freeflight 9y ago

Afaik they already thought of that solution because YouTube videos support tagging/categories but it's the video uploader who sets those tags. The problem is that once you introduce such a system, and leave all the control over the tags to the uploader, people start gaming it for better search rankings/more views. So you are back to the same old problem of "who checks if the content actually matches the tags".

awiesenhofer 9y ago
I think in bufferoverflows solution the tags come from algorithms and user reports not the publisher.

amarkov 9y ago

Strict rules for tagging would just run into the same problems as strict rules for demonetization. LGBT groups won't be any happier to see their content publicly branded "sexually explicit" than just demonetized.

bufferoverflow 9y ago
By strict rules I also mean objective and unbiased. Penis/vagina -> nudity (even if it's medical or educational). "Fuck" -> cursing (even if it's about the etymology of the word). Advocating murder of group X -> ban (even if you're quoting a religious text). If these rules are strict and clear, we have a chance of creating a legal-like system. Otherwise it's subjective chaos with everyone pissed off.
- matt4077 9y ago
  So a lecture quoting from the Old Testament, or an atheist quoting its worst parts, would get banned under your regime? Because, at least for the first three examples, you are explicitly including meta-discussions of the subject. It's impossible to create an "objective" standard. Because what you want to rate is meaning, and meaning is subjective, based on context and intent. One of history's most famous photos is of a fully nude girl, maybe 8 or 9 years old. It makes no sense to stick any labels to such an image without considering the context it was created in, and the cultural significance it has.
  - bufferoverflow 9y ago
    You didn't read carefully enough. I said "advocating murder". So no, a lecture or a simple quotation wouldn't result in anything.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      No, I read with plenty of care. Which is why I asked you to clarify why meta-discussions are included for the first three examples, but not the last. I'd also posit that it's impossible to define a clear distinction between a "lecture quoting a text advocating murder" and actually advocating murder. Just as it is impossible to just say penis->nudity, without losing the vast difference in meaning and effect from a photo of Michelangelo's David to hardcore pornography. That's because, fundamentally, there just is no such clear delineation. Give me any two photos including a penis, and I'll give you one that is more offensive than one, yet less offensive than the other. The tech community loves to ignore the long history of these problems, and denigrates everything that can't be expressed as a smart contract as "biased" or "subjective". But that's ok... In less than 200 years we'll have a great algorithm who will finally render the definitive test of what's porn and what's art: "I'll know it when I see it".

musage 9y ago

Where would this fit in? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R5w-PIzlUk 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.

bufferoverflow 9y ago
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?
- GrayShade 9y ago
  For context, see https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/9/16629788/youtube-kids-distrubing-inappropriate-flag-age-restrict https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/9/16629788/youtube-kids-dis...
- musage 9y ago
  > “We are shocked and appalled to see that our adverts have appeared alongside such exploitative and inappropriate content,” said a Mars spokesperson in a statement. “We have taken the decision to immediately suspend all our online advertising on YouTube and Google globally. Until we have confidence that appropriate safeguards are in place, we will not advertise on YouTube and Google.” http://www.tubefilter.com/2017/11/24/advertisers-suspend-youtube-elsagate/ 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 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.

oh-kumudo 9y ago

> 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 Tagging would use the same ML model that youtube is current running for demonetization, so there will be error as well. Problem here lies with the expectation, it aims with recall not precision. In other words, false negatives really hits Youtube's image, twice already this year. People only needs to find a handful problematic videos with misplaced ads and claim Youtube had some major problem, which might not be case behind the scene. Yet each time it becomes major media parade on bashing the company and result in an exodus of advertisers. If the goal is to eliminate false positives, which means less tolerance and stronger censorship, it will hurt a lot of innocent Youtubers, regardless. The crisis lies however with Youtube's model, if they cannot do a good job, no matter by algorithm or by human, managing the balance between quality and quantity of videos on their platform while keeping the advertisers happy and assured, it is just a matter of time, Youtube would ultimately degraded into our era's little television.