4 ms·

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? Yo

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?
        naibafo 8y ago
        No, Youtube takes a cut from the ads that are run on the videos of the creators. So they are directly profitting from the content. A print shop as metaphor would work if a creator would have to pay youtube to host his video, but all further proceeds would go solely to him. If Youtube profits directly from whatever they are hosting it is not that farfetched to say that they might also be liable for what is shown
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.

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?
      - naibafo 8y ago
        No, Youtube takes a cut from the ads that are run on the videos of the creators. So they are directly profitting from the content. A print shop as metaphor would work if a creator would have to pay youtube to host his video, but all further proceeds would go solely to him. If Youtube profits directly from whatever they are hosting it is not that farfetched to say that they might also be liable for what is shown

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.