7 ms·

The thing is that a lot of us saw this coming. Whenever people complain about how YouTube needs to remove X type of content, they also need to realize that if Y

The thing is that a lot of us saw this coming. Whenever people complain about how YouTube needs to remove X type of content, they also need to realize that if YouTube actually starts policing that type of content then there will be false positives. Since YouTube will do it algorithmically, the chance that there will be collateral damage is much higher and YouTube takes a long time to reverse decisions they've already made. For example, YouTube doesn't want violent content. Just having the word "kill" in your title can get the content demonetized, even if the content is about a video game and properly categorized as such. It's been this way for years.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
The point is that they shouldn't do it algorithmically. They need to have guidelines for what type of content is acceptable, and hire people to enforce them.
- monocasa 7y ago
  Or both. Have a scanner, but also have a meaningful appeals process, and you don't have a demonitized gap just because you were falsely flagged.
  - topmonk 7y ago
    How can you not have a demonitized gap? Advertisers aren't going to want to have they ads on content that hasn't been vetted.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Then the costs of YouTube probably balloon so high that it doesn't matter for creators whether their videos are demonetized or not, because they aren't going to earn anything from them.
  - Fomite 7y ago
    We may be hitting the point where societal impact is great enough that people don't necessarily accept "We can't do that at scale" as an out.
    - goatinaboat 7y ago
      Indeed. Given the vast wealth Google etc have accumulated its clear that actually, they could afford to do it, and still make good, but not astounding, profits. The rationale “we can’t make as much money as we’d like to if we followed the law” just won’t wash.
      - solveit 7y ago
        > Given the vast wealth Google etc have accumulated its clear that actually, they could afford to do it, and still make good, but not astounding, profits. Citation very much needed.
        collyw 7y ago
        You need citation to prove that Google is rich?
        icebraining 7y ago
        They need a citation to prove that Google is rich enough. According to stats, they were getting 400 hours of new video every minute - and that was back in 2015, it's probably at least 600 nowadays, as more people have been getting online. How much would it cost, with all overheads, to review all that?
        ChickeNES 7y ago
        Also, content reviewers for Google and Facebook have straight up developed PTSD from the things they've seen, that has to be factored in as well.
      - sieabahlpark 7y ago
wolfgke 7y ago
> For example, YouTube doesn't want violent content. Just having the word "kill" in your title can get the content demonetized, even if the content is about a video game and properly categorized as such. It's been this way for years. I think that this actully is violent content - so this is actually an example where the algorithm worked fine (which does not contradict your argument that there exist false positives - they are just a lot more subtle).
- AndrewOMartin 7y ago
  This video [1] about how to do the Charleston dance got demonetized, and there only hypothesis is because it had "Charleston" in the title a mere year-and-a-bit after the Charleston church shooting. That's not exactly subtle. I understand there could be other reasons for being demonetised, but it's hard to see what it could be in a very very inoffensive video about how to do a vintage dance. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdgCq1IGmsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdgCq1IGmsY
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Is it really violent content when you're dealing with space ships with no humans or animals on board?
  - wolfgke 7y ago
    > Is it really violent content when you're dealing with space ships with no humans or animals on board? If you are referring to the game example given some posts above: "Killing" means that the respective object was alive before - a property that a space ship with no living beings onboard does not have. So the respective author named and labelled the video improperly.

jakelazaroff 7y ago

The point is that they shouldn't do it algorithmically. They need to have guidelines for what type of content is acceptable, and hire people to enforce them.

monocasa 7y ago
Or both. Have a scanner, but also have a meaningful appeals process, and you don't have a demonitized gap just because you were falsely flagged.
- topmonk 7y ago
  How can you not have a demonitized gap? Advertisers aren't going to want to have they ads on content that hasn't been vetted.
Mirioron 7y ago
Then the costs of YouTube probably balloon so high that it doesn't matter for creators whether their videos are demonetized or not, because they aren't going to earn anything from them.
- Fomite 7y ago
  We may be hitting the point where societal impact is great enough that people don't necessarily accept "We can't do that at scale" as an out.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    Indeed. Given the vast wealth Google etc have accumulated its clear that actually, they could afford to do it, and still make good, but not astounding, profits. The rationale “we can’t make as much money as we’d like to if we followed the law” just won’t wash.
    - solveit 7y ago
      > Given the vast wealth Google etc have accumulated its clear that actually, they could afford to do it, and still make good, but not astounding, profits. Citation very much needed.
      - collyw 7y ago
        You need citation to prove that Google is rich?
        icebraining 7y ago
        They need a citation to prove that Google is rich enough. According to stats, they were getting 400 hours of new video every minute - and that was back in 2015, it's probably at least 600 nowadays, as more people have been getting online. How much would it cost, with all overheads, to review all that?
        ChickeNES 7y ago
        Also, content reviewers for Google and Facebook have straight up developed PTSD from the things they've seen, that has to be factored in as well.
    - sieabahlpark 7y ago

wolfgke 7y ago

> For example, YouTube doesn't want violent content. Just having the word "kill" in your title can get the content demonetized, even if the content is about a video game and properly categorized as such. It's been this way for years. I think that this actully is violent content - so this is actually an example where the algorithm worked fine (which does not contradict your argument that there exist false positives - they are just a lot more subtle).

AndrewOMartin 7y ago
This video [1] about how to do the Charleston dance got demonetized, and there only hypothesis is because it had "Charleston" in the title a mere year-and-a-bit after the Charleston church shooting. That's not exactly subtle. I understand there could be other reasons for being demonetised, but it's hard to see what it could be in a very very inoffensive video about how to do a vintage dance. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdgCq1IGmsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdgCq1IGmsY
Mirioron 7y ago
Is it really violent content when you're dealing with space ships with no humans or animals on board?
- wolfgke 7y ago
  > Is it really violent content when you're dealing with space ships with no humans or animals on board? If you are referring to the game example given some posts above: "Killing" means that the respective object was alive before - a property that a space ship with no living beings onboard does not have. So the respective author named and labelled the video improperly.