9 ms·

The ramifications of this are profound, at least: - shake the money stick at them and they will dance (thanks, of all people, Nestle!) - they've admitted a se

by _wmd 8y ago

The ramifications of this are profound, at least: - shake the money stick at them and they will dance (thanks, of all people, Nestle!) - they've admitted a serious problem exists that they were unwilling to deal with until external pressure forced them to (i.e. they can't be trusted to self regulate) - they've all but admitted they can't fix this in reasonable time, if at all This is the first time I can think of where there has been a seriously material chink in Google's.. cultural armour? Turns out the advertisers are in control, and turns out they don't have a technical cure all. It'll be interesting to see how they attempt to reintroduce comments in the long term, no doubt more ML. Of course, this says nothing about a recommendation system that continues to blindly cluster videos of lithe toddlers together. I wonder if any advertisers are making a stink about that Favourite summary: kids are safer on YouTube today because of Disney and Nestle, not because of Google. Let that sink in. The subtext here of course is that Nestle and Disney are some of the most evil companies around, and yet they're the ones that were forced to strong-arm Google. The irony of this defies words, and the reality of the only mechanism at play here to protect children is almost as disturbing - these companies don't "care about children", they were only forced into action to maintain their reputation. (gentle reminder: HN punishes highly commented 'controversial' stories. If you care about this issue being more widely understood, try to limit your commenting)

theNJR 8y ago
I, for one, do not want Google deciding what is true.
- brentonator 8y ago
  God forbid they put a link to Wikipedia under flat earth videos, huh?
  - mediocrejoker 8y ago
    You only think that's a good idea because you don't believe in flat earth. They could equally put a link to flat earth sites under NASA/SpaceX videos. Do you really want to decree that whatever they link is "true" just because you agree with them in this particular instance?
    - groby_b 8y ago
      Yes. Because obvious idiocy should not be rewarded. There are many things that are debatable, but flat earth? That falls under verifiable facts, and we shouldn't equivocate about those.
    - pjc50 8y ago
      "You only want them to do good things, not bad things! How hypocritical!"
    - claudiawerner 8y ago
      Do you realise how silly this line of argument is? Why exactly should we (or Google for that matter) not recognise that there are differences in some actions? That some things are good, and some things are bad? In what world do you conceive it to be the same to advertise flat earth theories as legitimate unless you are yourself a flat earther? This idea that because nobody has a monopoly on the truth then we can't make decision is utterly futile and silly; I have no idea where it originates, except perhaps in the darkest places where reason has utterly collapsed.
      - hackinthebochs 8y ago
        Of course, every authority since the beginning of civilization has carried this mantle in justification for censorship of all sorts. Having Google decide what information can and can't be shared on their platform (read: utility) is a dangerous state of affairs. What new social movement, or recognition of a current injustice will be stifled due a status-quo bias that is codified by such top down control over the media? We can't know from where we currently stand, which is what makes such control dangerous.
        claudiawerner 8y ago
        The fact that a reason is used (and has been used) to justify censorship unjustly does not mean that the reason itself is invalid, or that there is no such thing as good censorship; most people agree that some censorship (of threats or child pornography etc.) can be a great positive force. There is no reason behind the idea that because we can't totally differentiate between good and bad where the line is blurry then we can't do anything at all. I'd also question whether free speech is intrinsically valuable, more than other actions are. I have seen no convincing reason to think so. We can approve of good actions (like putting a Wikipedia link about earth science under a flat earther's video) and disapprove of bad ones (like putting flat earth propaganda underneath a scientific video). I see no issue here.
- gumby 8y ago
  The people who use gmail essentially are "letting google decide what is true" by having google do their spam fighting. And letting google choose which responses to choose to a search request is essentially also asking them to decide what's true (how many people even go to the second page of results, much less later ones?) I agree with your sentiment (and am not a gmail user -- yuck!!) but I do sometimes use their search engine...and know that when I use ddg I'm ceding the same authority to them.
  - Diederich 8y ago
    Tangential: what e-mail (if any) do you use? Thanks!
    - gumby 8y ago
      I ran sendmail from the late 80s until around 2001 when I switched to qmail, which I then used until around 2012. Since then I have used postfix. My mail and other services run on hardware of mine in a colo. I've had a rack of personal machines in a colo since the mid 90s; before then I simply plugged my machines in at work.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  I have no problem with Google deciding what Google will say is true on Google-owned platforms.
  - pixl97 8y ago
    Google: gay people are bad and women are lesser than men. You: sue them out of existence. We both know what you just typed is bullshit, for good reason.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Google: gay people are bad and women are lesser than men > You: sue them out of existence. Well, no, so I wouldn't say that, but, OTOH, saying that might be problematic from an employment noon-discrimination standpoint. And there are other things Google might say that would be problematic from a standpoint of either consumer or securities fraud. Or libel. But none of that is germane to the point under discussion.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Everyone who types anything into a Google search box is asking Google to do that.
pjc50 8y ago
Do I want Nestle deciding what video content is worthwhile? No. Do I want edgelords and abusers all over my screen? Also no. At this stage I'll take any attempt to do something, even if it is deeply corporate. At least Nestle you can argue with without getting death threats. (Not always true of e.g. Shell...)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Mirioron 8y ago
>- they've admitted a serious problem exists that they were unwilling to deal with until external pressure forced them to (i.e. they can't be trusted to self regulate) No, they didn't. The problem that Youtube is dealing with is advertisers leaving, not the actual comments. Dealing with the problem of advertisers leaving is different from dealing with those comments. It's unclear whether dealing with those comments is even desirable, because Youtube would, in essence, become the censor of what is and is not okay to post in the comments sections, even if they don't break any codifiable rules or laws. Would you find it acceptable that what your freedom of expression is filtered by rules as unclear as that? Laowhy86 got his comments disabled because his daughter appeared in some of his videos. If this standard were to be pushed across the board then it would effectively ban comments on any videos that have underage people appear in them. Is this desirable for our society? >Favourite summary: kids are safer on YouTube today because of Disney and Nestle, not because of Google. Let that sink in. But this is not true. Firstly, kids on YouTube were NOT impacted by this. When a creep watches a video of a person then that person is not negatively impacted by it. Secondly, all you've done is hide the problem. The videos of the kids still exist, the time stamps can still be created. All the creeps need to do is share that information somewhere else. That's it. And the only way to fight this one is to simply bar kids from appearing in any media content. Good luck posting a video of you walking around town or of an event where somebody underage might be. This is similar to the discussion about whether you are allowed to let your 9 year old go outside unsupervised. It's a question of how much freedom do we allow people and kids in our society. It seems to be that public opinion is on the side of less freedom and more protection.
- _wmd 8y ago
  > Firstly, kids on YouTube were NOT impacted by this Unfortunately this is inaccurate. There are billions of daily adolescent YouTube users, some of whom entering puberty that were exposed and continue to be exposed to the recommendation algorithm that created this mess in the first place, and for periods running into hours every evening. At such an early stage in development, it is absolutely the company's duty of care to ensure that a 5 year old is not being sent up a gradient of a recommendation system that is encouraging them (with the help of the comments just removed) to view people of their own age in a sexual manner. Not only were children impacted by this, but the mechanism that enables it remains active to this day. I agree with the idea of allowing children outside, but as per my reply to your previous comment, not if that means spending all day in the back yard of the village creepy old man. Balance is required in every situation, and denial of the kind your comment is riddled with accomplishes nothing.

by _wmd 8y ago

theNJR 8y ago

I, for one, do not want Google deciding what is true.

brentonator 8y ago
God forbid they put a link to Wikipedia under flat earth videos, huh?
- mediocrejoker 8y ago
  You only think that's a good idea because you don't believe in flat earth. They could equally put a link to flat earth sites under NASA/SpaceX videos. Do you really want to decree that whatever they link is "true" just because you agree with them in this particular instance?
  - groby_b 8y ago
    Yes. Because obvious idiocy should not be rewarded. There are many things that are debatable, but flat earth? That falls under verifiable facts, and we shouldn't equivocate about those.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    "You only want them to do good things, not bad things! How hypocritical!"
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    Do you realise how silly this line of argument is? Why exactly should we (or Google for that matter) not recognise that there are differences in some actions? That some things are good, and some things are bad? In what world do you conceive it to be the same to advertise flat earth theories as legitimate unless you are yourself a flat earther? This idea that because nobody has a monopoly on the truth then we can't make decision is utterly futile and silly; I have no idea where it originates, except perhaps in the darkest places where reason has utterly collapsed.
    - hackinthebochs 8y ago
      Of course, every authority since the beginning of civilization has carried this mantle in justification for censorship of all sorts. Having Google decide what information can and can't be shared on their platform (read: utility) is a dangerous state of affairs. What new social movement, or recognition of a current injustice will be stifled due a status-quo bias that is codified by such top down control over the media? We can't know from where we currently stand, which is what makes such control dangerous.
      - claudiawerner 8y ago
        The fact that a reason is used (and has been used) to justify censorship unjustly does not mean that the reason itself is invalid, or that there is no such thing as good censorship; most people agree that some censorship (of threats or child pornography etc.) can be a great positive force. There is no reason behind the idea that because we can't totally differentiate between good and bad where the line is blurry then we can't do anything at all. I'd also question whether free speech is intrinsically valuable, more than other actions are. I have seen no convincing reason to think so. We can approve of good actions (like putting a Wikipedia link about earth science under a flat earther's video) and disapprove of bad ones (like putting flat earth propaganda underneath a scientific video). I see no issue here.
gumby 8y ago
The people who use gmail essentially are "letting google decide what is true" by having google do their spam fighting. And letting google choose which responses to choose to a search request is essentially also asking them to decide what's true (how many people even go to the second page of results, much less later ones?) I agree with your sentiment (and am not a gmail user -- yuck!!) but I do sometimes use their search engine...and know that when I use ddg I'm ceding the same authority to them.
- Diederich 8y ago
  Tangential: what e-mail (if any) do you use? Thanks!
  - gumby 8y ago
    I ran sendmail from the late 80s until around 2001 when I switched to qmail, which I then used until around 2012. Since then I have used postfix. My mail and other services run on hardware of mine in a colo. I've had a rack of personal machines in a colo since the mid 90s; before then I simply plugged my machines in at work.
dragonwriter 8y ago
I have no problem with Google deciding what Google will say is true on Google-owned platforms.
- pixl97 8y ago
  Google: gay people are bad and women are lesser than men. You: sue them out of existence. We both know what you just typed is bullshit, for good reason.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Google: gay people are bad and women are lesser than men > You: sue them out of existence. Well, no, so I wouldn't say that, but, OTOH, saying that might be problematic from an employment noon-discrimination standpoint. And there are other things Google might say that would be problematic from a standpoint of either consumer or securities fraud. Or libel. But none of that is germane to the point under discussion.
pjc50 8y ago
Everyone who types anything into a Google search box is asking Google to do that.

pjc50 8y ago

Do I want Nestle deciding what video content is worthwhile? No. Do I want edgelords and abusers all over my screen? Also no. At this stage I'll take any attempt to do something, even if it is deeply corporate. At least Nestle you can argue with without getting death threats. (Not always true of e.g. Shell...)

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Mirioron 8y ago

>- they've admitted a serious problem exists that they were unwilling to deal with until external pressure forced them to (i.e. they can't be trusted to self regulate) No, they didn't. The problem that Youtube is dealing with is advertisers leaving, not the actual comments. Dealing with the problem of advertisers leaving is different from dealing with those comments. It's unclear whether dealing with those comments is even desirable, because Youtube would, in essence, become the censor of what is and is not okay to post in the comments sections, even if they don't break any codifiable rules or laws. Would you find it acceptable that what your freedom of expression is filtered by rules as unclear as that? Laowhy86 got his comments disabled because his daughter appeared in some of his videos. If this standard were to be pushed across the board then it would effectively ban comments on any videos that have underage people appear in them. Is this desirable for our society? >Favourite summary: kids are safer on YouTube today because of Disney and Nestle, not because of Google. Let that sink in. But this is not true. Firstly, kids on YouTube were NOT impacted by this. When a creep watches a video of a person then that person is not negatively impacted by it. Secondly, all you've done is hide the problem. The videos of the kids still exist, the time stamps can still be created. All the creeps need to do is share that information somewhere else. That's it. And the only way to fight this one is to simply bar kids from appearing in any media content. Good luck posting a video of you walking around town or of an event where somebody underage might be. This is similar to the discussion about whether you are allowed to let your 9 year old go outside unsupervised. It's a question of how much freedom do we allow people and kids in our society. It seems to be that public opinion is on the side of less freedom and more protection.

_wmd 8y ago
> Firstly, kids on YouTube were NOT impacted by this Unfortunately this is inaccurate. There are billions of daily adolescent YouTube users, some of whom entering puberty that were exposed and continue to be exposed to the recommendation algorithm that created this mess in the first place, and for periods running into hours every evening. At such an early stage in development, it is absolutely the company's duty of care to ensure that a 5 year old is not being sent up a gradient of a recommendation system that is encouraging them (with the help of the comments just removed) to view people of their own age in a sexual manner. Not only were children impacted by this, but the mechanism that enables it remains active to this day. I agree with the idea of allowing children outside, but as per my reply to your previous comment, not if that means spending all day in the back yard of the village creepy old man. Balance is required in every situation, and denial of the kind your comment is riddled with accomplishes nothing.