4 ms·

> We use machine learning to evaluate content against our advertiser guidelines. Sometimes our systems get it wrong, which is why we’ve encouraged creators to a

> We use machine learning to evaluate content against our advertiser guidelines. Sometimes our systems get it wrong, which is why we’ve encouraged creators to appeal. Successful appeals ensure that our systems get better and better There's been bad press about this for months now. People with conservative viewpoints claimed to be facing similar issues The cost of a false positive seems extremely high. Why would they depend on ML for high influencers?

systoll 8y ago
Even the 'high influencer' subset is a massive quantity of videos.
amarkov 8y ago
As Facebook learned recently, people aren't willing to give much benefit of the doubt to solutions involving human review. Can you imagine a creator saying "I don’t think YouTube is doing this on purpose", as they did in this article, if some actual Youtube employee had clicked a button to demonetize?
methodover 8y ago
That same quote jumped out at me too. In another sentence they say they don’t have a list of words that trigger demonetization. Well, YT, you do. It’s just in your ML model. You let a pattern recognition algorithm create the list for you. (Yes it’s not quite just a list, but still.)
- ericschmidt 8y ago
  I love how they try to shift blame onto an algorithm as if they didn't write that algorithm themselves and don't have 100% control over the algorithm. "Guys we're not bigoted, it's just the algorithm that we created and currently control that's bigoted! Blame the algorithm not us! It's not like we created it and can change it any time to be less racist or anything!" Lmfao
bytematic 8y ago
Ya, under 100k subs or some sort of viewer metric should be a completely different system. Perhaps a similar system to twitter, who uses hybrid components for different scale users.

4 ms·

> We use machine learning to evaluate content against our advertiser guidelines. Sometimes our systems get it wrong, which is why we’ve encouraged creators to a

by annexrichmond 8y ago

systoll 8y ago
Even the 'high influencer' subset is a massive quantity of videos.
amarkov 8y ago
As Facebook learned recently, people aren't willing to give much benefit of the doubt to solutions involving human review. Can you imagine a creator saying "I don’t think YouTube is doing this on purpose", as they did in this article, if some actual Youtube employee had clicked a button to demonetize?
methodover 8y ago
That same quote jumped out at me too. In another sentence they say they don’t have a list of words that trigger demonetization. Well, YT, you do. It’s just in your ML model. You let a pattern recognition algorithm create the list for you. (Yes it’s not quite just a list, but still.)
- ericschmidt 8y ago
  I love how they try to shift blame onto an algorithm as if they didn't write that algorithm themselves and don't have 100% control over the algorithm. "Guys we're not bigoted, it's just the algorithm that we created and currently control that's bigoted! Blame the algorithm not us! It's not like we created it and can change it any time to be less racist or anything!" Lmfao
bytematic 8y ago
Ya, under 100k subs or some sort of viewer metric should be a completely different system. Perhaps a similar system to twitter, who uses hybrid components for different scale users.