8 ms·

There's a fundamental difference between curating content like a newspaper does vs what Youtube and similar sites do. It's a whitelist vs blacklist approach: a

There's a fundamental difference between curating content like a newspaper does vs what Youtube and similar sites do. It's a whitelist vs blacklist approach: a newspaper approves things one by one and only has so much content, while Youtube allows anything by default and then removes thing in certain categories. And even newspapers use the latter approach for some things. I doubt the New York Times wants to be held responsible if someone posts a link to pirated content in an article comment, for instance.

youeseh 8y ago
When you visit youtube.com, you are shown a small slice of all the videos in the YouTube database that YouTube thinks you should watch. Isn't that curation? YouTube tries to automate curation with the use of algorithms that cater content to who they think their visitor is.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > When you visit youtube.com, you are shown a small slice of all the videos in the YouTube database that YouTube thinks you should watch. Isn't that curation? That doesn't have any effect on which videos they're hosting. All the ones that aren't featured are still there. It's not as if Hollywood would be satisfied for YouTube to be hosting infringing content just because it wasn't featured.
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  > Isn't that curation? It's not the kind of curation we're talking about, no. We're talking about whether it's allowed (or at least publicly visible) on their website at all, not what is shown on the front page to each user.
  - youeseh 8y ago
    Ah, good point.
  - da_chicken 8y ago
    Eh, there is some functional equivalence. Less than 5% of videos on YouTube have more than 10,000 views [0]. That means the vast majority of videos are functionally not published. YouTube won't promote any of those videos. They won't show up in on the Home page, let alone the Trending page. They're very unlikely to show up in recommended videos. Unless you're looking for that specific person or a very narrow topic, you're not going to find these channels, let alone these videos. [0]: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/05/19/1-percent-youtube-videos-94-percent-views/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/05/19/1-percent-youtub...
    - topoftheforts 8y ago
      I don't really get what you're trying to prove here, I mean yes we can see the algorithm as a form of curation but the point here's different, newspapers have a set amount of pages and articles whereas YouTube has 400 hours of content uploaded every minute. Hence it's not fair to compare the two of them, in my opinion.
      - lovich 8y ago
        All I'm getting out of your argument if YouTube is using these arguments they are trying to say that they do so much business they should be allowed to skip rules, and that they are potentially violating orders of magnitude more copyright than other industries. Should we allow companies to skip out on laws just because they scaled their business up?
        LanceH 8y ago
        A newspaper isn't the right metaphor. Google runs a print shopt.
        lovich 8y ago
        It's not a metaphor. They both engage in referencing copyrighted material, but YouTube gets to skip out on the laws that appky to other industries. This board is usually in agreement that patents that are effectively of the pattern of "were doing something that's been done before, but it's on the internet so it's different now" are complete bullshit. Why are we giving a pass to internet based companies when it comes to copyright, just because they are making a lot of money?
- paxy 8y ago
  The law extends to videos beyond the front page
- mcv 8y ago
  > When you visit youtube.com, you are shown a small slice of all the videos in the YouTube database that YouTube thinks you should watch. Isn't that curation? If it's Youtube's suggestions that are the problem, I suppose Youtube could be more careful in what content they suggest for you without banning other content to exist. It's just going to be harder to stumble upon when it's not what you're looking for.
golemotron 8y ago
> There's a fundamental difference between curating content like a newspaper does vs what Youtube and similar sites do. It's a whitelist vs blacklist approach: a newspaper approves things one by one and only has so much content, while Youtube allows anything by default and then removes thing in certain categories. That distinction is no solace if your copyright is being violated or you are being defamed in an unaddressable way.
- JoshTriplett 8y ago
  > That distinction is no solace if your copyright is being violated or you are being defamed in an unaddressable way. Then send an individual takedown notice, or file a defamation lawsuit. Why should you get a special process that bypasses the legal system?
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    The problem with individual takedown notices is that they don't scale. The same excuse YouTube is making for why they can't police the illegal content they host, is why sending individual takedown notices similarly isn't a manageable system to remove illegal content on the platform. People can upload illegal content faster than lawyers can issue takedown notices for them.
    - macspoofing 8y ago
      >The problem with individual takedown notices is that they don't scale Ok. So how is copyright policing scalable? I argue that a general copyright filter is much harder than a copyright filter targeting your specific works. Also, the big copyright holders have automated this process, unless you think they employ thousands of people to send individual take-down notices?
    - JoshTriplett 8y ago
      > The problem with individual takedown notices is that they don't scale. > People can upload illegal content faster than lawyers can issue takedown notices for them. Why is a massive copyright-owning organization's failure to scale a problem that anyone else should help with? I'm aware of the original lawsuits against YouTube to that effect, and the arguments are just as wrong now as they were then. (Also, I fully believe that filing an incorrect takedown notice should have legal repercussions, which today it never seems to.)
rtpg 8y ago
The fact that Youtube works on a blacklist is a choice of their own. It's still them hosting and publishing the videos. I am a fan of the DMCA approach for this problem, but saying that Youtube's business model doesn't work with this rule is... kinda the point? It defnitely would be the point for sites like Megaupload

youeseh 8y ago

When you visit youtube.com, you are shown a small slice of all the videos in the YouTube database that YouTube thinks you should watch. Isn't that curation? YouTube tries to automate curation with the use of algorithms that cater content to who they think their visitor is.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> When you visit youtube.com, you are shown a small slice of all the videos in the YouTube database that YouTube thinks you should watch. Isn't that curation? That doesn't have any effect on which videos they're hosting. All the ones that aren't featured are still there. It's not as if Hollywood would be satisfied for YouTube to be hosting infringing content just because it wasn't featured.
TulliusCicero 8y ago
> Isn't that curation? It's not the kind of curation we're talking about, no. We're talking about whether it's allowed (or at least publicly visible) on their website at all, not what is shown on the front page to each user.
- youeseh 8y ago
  Ah, good point.
- da_chicken 8y ago
  Eh, there is some functional equivalence. Less than 5% of videos on YouTube have more than 10,000 views [0]. That means the vast majority of videos are functionally not published. YouTube won't promote any of those videos. They won't show up in on the Home page, let alone the Trending page. They're very unlikely to show up in recommended videos. Unless you're looking for that specific person or a very narrow topic, you're not going to find these channels, let alone these videos. [0]: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/05/19/1-percent-youtube-videos-94-percent-views/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/05/19/1-percent-youtub...
  - topoftheforts 8y ago
    I don't really get what you're trying to prove here, I mean yes we can see the algorithm as a form of curation but the point here's different, newspapers have a set amount of pages and articles whereas YouTube has 400 hours of content uploaded every minute. Hence it's not fair to compare the two of them, in my opinion.
    - lovich 8y ago
      All I'm getting out of your argument if YouTube is using these arguments they are trying to say that they do so much business they should be allowed to skip rules, and that they are potentially violating orders of magnitude more copyright than other industries. Should we allow companies to skip out on laws just because they scaled their business up?
      - LanceH 8y ago
        A newspaper isn't the right metaphor. Google runs a print shopt.
        lovich 8y ago
        It's not a metaphor. They both engage in referencing copyrighted material, but YouTube gets to skip out on the laws that appky to other industries. This board is usually in agreement that patents that are effectively of the pattern of "were doing something that's been done before, but it's on the internet so it's different now" are complete bullshit. Why are we giving a pass to internet based companies when it comes to copyright, just because they are making a lot of money?
paxy 8y ago
The law extends to videos beyond the front page
mcv 8y ago
> When you visit youtube.com, you are shown a small slice of all the videos in the YouTube database that YouTube thinks you should watch. Isn't that curation? If it's Youtube's suggestions that are the problem, I suppose Youtube could be more careful in what content they suggest for you without banning other content to exist. It's just going to be harder to stumble upon when it's not what you're looking for.

golemotron 8y ago

> There's a fundamental difference between curating content like a newspaper does vs what Youtube and similar sites do. It's a whitelist vs blacklist approach: a newspaper approves things one by one and only has so much content, while Youtube allows anything by default and then removes thing in certain categories. That distinction is no solace if your copyright is being violated or you are being defamed in an unaddressable way.

JoshTriplett 8y ago
> That distinction is no solace if your copyright is being violated or you are being defamed in an unaddressable way. Then send an individual takedown notice, or file a defamation lawsuit. Why should you get a special process that bypasses the legal system?
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  The problem with individual takedown notices is that they don't scale. The same excuse YouTube is making for why they can't police the illegal content they host, is why sending individual takedown notices similarly isn't a manageable system to remove illegal content on the platform. People can upload illegal content faster than lawyers can issue takedown notices for them.
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    >The problem with individual takedown notices is that they don't scale Ok. So how is copyright policing scalable? I argue that a general copyright filter is much harder than a copyright filter targeting your specific works. Also, the big copyright holders have automated this process, unless you think they employ thousands of people to send individual take-down notices?
  - JoshTriplett 8y ago
    > The problem with individual takedown notices is that they don't scale. > People can upload illegal content faster than lawyers can issue takedown notices for them. Why is a massive copyright-owning organization's failure to scale a problem that anyone else should help with? I'm aware of the original lawsuits against YouTube to that effect, and the arguments are just as wrong now as they were then. (Also, I fully believe that filing an incorrect takedown notice should have legal repercussions, which today it never seems to.)

rtpg 8y ago

The fact that Youtube works on a blacklist is a choice of their own. It's still them hosting and publishing the videos. I am a fan of the DMCA approach for this problem, but saying that Youtube's business model doesn't work with this rule is... kinda the point? It defnitely would be the point for sites like Megaupload