5 ms·

Much of the coverage of YouTube's demonetization algorithm has it framed as censoring or curbing LGBT speech, presumably because LGBT issues are controversial.

Much of the coverage of YouTube's demonetization algorithm has it framed as censoring or curbing LGBT speech, presumably because LGBT issues are controversial. I think it's much more likely that hateful anti-lgbt videos contain these terms much more frequently, which in turn causes these terms to be more aggressively policed by YouTube's algorithm. Enough videos talking about how the queers are ruining society or other hateful content, and it's pretty much inevitable that these terms are likely to cause demonetization. Ultimately, there's a trade-off to be made. YouTube could make their algorithm less strict, but then more objectionable content would monetized. YouTube doesn't want to go through another wringer of public criticism for it's advertising. The lawsuit filed by content creators is going nowhere. YouTube has blanket policies like not monetizing any videos with firearms, they are under zero obligation to monetize LGBT content.

windsurfer 7y ago
Have you ever tried to place an advertisement on YouTube? Advertisers can pick and choose the kinds of videos and kinds of users they place their ads on through the interface. This is different. This is YouTube saying "Absolutely no one may place an ad here under any circumstances." Advertisers have no say, and cannot place an ad on these videos even if they wanted to.
- VikingCoder 7y ago
  ...unless they directly sponsor the content, paying the producer directly for a mention, etc. Which I increasingly see happen in more and more places. Binging with Babish, Linus Tech Tips, etc.
- ehsankia 7y ago
  Eh, that's not entirely true, Yellow means limited ads, grey would be "Absolutely no ads". But limited is generally much less, it's advertisers that opt-in into running on all videos.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >Have you ever tried to place an advertisement on YouTube? Advertisers can pick and choose the kinds of videos and kinds of users they place their ads on through the interface. This didn't stop advertisers from pulling their ads during the adpocalypse. They pulled them because "YouTube has to do something!"
- manfredo 7y ago
  I think you misunderstood to point I'm making. It's very hard to train an algorithm tell whether a video is referencing LGBT content in a negative or positive light. The consequences of monetizing the former is much larger than not monetizing the latter. How advertisers select topics to advertise is not related to what I am writing about at all.
meheleventyone 7y ago
But if the algorithm can't tell the difference between positive and negative content on a subject is it any use at all? It basically invites bad actors to trick it into demonetising their targets. You can also see this in how Twitter reports get weaponised.
- ehsankia 7y ago
  The algorithm can't tell because these experiments are run with literally empty videos/audios on a blank channel... You're feeding the algorithm an abnormal input, with no data points to detect anything. Normally, it would look at the video, audio and channel status and so on. In this case, it's not getting any of that. The model wasn't built to run on edge cases like this and it isn't expected to be able to classify such an outlier input.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  The best solution was the old solution. Don't demonetize videos and do not give in into the demands of advertisers to select content. If that had happened, the "objectionable" content wouldn't be as popular as it is now.
tboyd47 7y ago
This is bound to happen to any platform financed by advertisers. Controversies are like fires to them. If it's not under their control, it's dangerous and has to be put out.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >If it's not under their control, it's dangerous and has to be put out. I think the last thing advertisers want is more control, because that means they are responsible. Advertisers just don't want bad publicity, so when the news media comes knocking because of some controversy, the advertiser can say: "We did everything we could! (Please talk about us in a good way.)"
jbob2000 7y ago
There's another side to this though. LGBTQ content is inherently about sexuality, how is youtube supposed to deteremine when you're talking about sexuality for the sake of social progress vs. talking about sexuality for the sake of, well, sex?
- mijamo 7y ago
  Is it bad to talk about sex?
  - jbob2000 7y ago
    Not in my opinion, but some advertisers clearly think so. And there are a LOT of Americans that believe it's bad to talk about too.
- danaris 7y ago
  > LGBTQ content is inherently about sexuality No, it's not. It's about people. Simply mentioning that someone is lesbian in a video does not make the content "inherently about sexuality." The idea that everything related to LGBTQ issues is inherently sexual in nature is one of the most toxic ones to people with those identities. It maintains the idea that their very existence taboo, something you're not allowed to talk about in public, and certainly not around children! When talking about LBGTQ identities around children, normalizing their existence, is one of the most powerful things to help LGBTQ children understand and accept their identities, and help straight, cisgender children recognize that LGBTQ children are fine, normal, and not something to be feared or reviled.
  - jbob2000 7y ago
    I’m struggling to understand what an LGBTQ identity is if it isn’t related to sexuality. The definition of a lesbian is a woman who has sexual preferences for women. If a woman doesn’t have sexual preferences for other women, but still likes them, then we just call them “friends”, no? She isn’t a lesbian just because she has female friends. And now we get into our semantic debate; is LGBTQ content any content that is generated by a member of that group? So if a gay man talks about skateboarding, is it LGBTQ content? Or is it only LGBTQ content when the topic is literally about lesbians, gays, bis, and transsexuals? If you talk about sexuality, you’re talking about sexuality, so you’re going to get hit with these censors. If you talk about skateboarding, you aren’t talking about sexuality, so you won’t get censored.
rjf72 7y ago
Everything makes a lot more sense if you don't look at advertiser decisions as moral ones, but rather as economic ones. LGBT is laden with a number of controversial and polarizing issues. This means something that is advertising on a video where this is a meaningful focus, whether positive or negative, may result in controversy. And advertisers can't win in controversy. If they withdraw advertising, one group is pissed. If they don't withdraw advertising, another group is pissed. So they see it in their best interest to avoid controversy altogether simply as a means of maximizing their economic return. And so you get the end result - advertisers are drawn to bland and inoffensive content. I'd hypothesize this also goes some way towards explaining the deterioration of music which went from invariable social commentary tied to the issues of the day to a million different versions of 'oh baby i love you' as the top tracks. Dylan to Bieber in 40 years. What progress...

windsurfer 7y ago

Have you ever tried to place an advertisement on YouTube? Advertisers can pick and choose the kinds of videos and kinds of users they place their ads on through the interface. This is different. This is YouTube saying "Absolutely no one may place an ad here under any circumstances." Advertisers have no say, and cannot place an ad on these videos even if they wanted to.

VikingCoder 7y ago
...unless they directly sponsor the content, paying the producer directly for a mention, etc. Which I increasingly see happen in more and more places. Binging with Babish, Linus Tech Tips, etc.
ehsankia 7y ago
Eh, that's not entirely true, Yellow means limited ads, grey would be "Absolutely no ads". But limited is generally much less, it's advertisers that opt-in into running on all videos.
Mirioron 7y ago
>Have you ever tried to place an advertisement on YouTube? Advertisers can pick and choose the kinds of videos and kinds of users they place their ads on through the interface. This didn't stop advertisers from pulling their ads during the adpocalypse. They pulled them because "YouTube has to do something!"
manfredo 7y ago
I think you misunderstood to point I'm making. It's very hard to train an algorithm tell whether a video is referencing LGBT content in a negative or positive light. The consequences of monetizing the former is much larger than not monetizing the latter. How advertisers select topics to advertise is not related to what I am writing about at all.

meheleventyone 7y ago

But if the algorithm can't tell the difference between positive and negative content on a subject is it any use at all? It basically invites bad actors to trick it into demonetising their targets. You can also see this in how Twitter reports get weaponised.

ehsankia 7y ago
The algorithm can't tell because these experiments are run with literally empty videos/audios on a blank channel... You're feeding the algorithm an abnormal input, with no data points to detect anything. Normally, it would look at the video, audio and channel status and so on. In this case, it's not getting any of that. The model wasn't built to run on edge cases like this and it isn't expected to be able to classify such an outlier input.
raxxorrax 7y ago
The best solution was the old solution. Don't demonetize videos and do not give in into the demands of advertisers to select content. If that had happened, the "objectionable" content wouldn't be as popular as it is now.

tboyd47 7y ago

This is bound to happen to any platform financed by advertisers. Controversies are like fires to them. If it's not under their control, it's dangerous and has to be put out.

Mirioron 7y ago
>If it's not under their control, it's dangerous and has to be put out. I think the last thing advertisers want is more control, because that means they are responsible. Advertisers just don't want bad publicity, so when the news media comes knocking because of some controversy, the advertiser can say: "We did everything we could! (Please talk about us in a good way.)"

jbob2000 7y ago

There's another side to this though. LGBTQ content is inherently about sexuality, how is youtube supposed to deteremine when you're talking about sexuality for the sake of social progress vs. talking about sexuality for the sake of, well, sex?

mijamo 7y ago
Is it bad to talk about sex?
- jbob2000 7y ago
  Not in my opinion, but some advertisers clearly think so. And there are a LOT of Americans that believe it's bad to talk about too.
danaris 7y ago
> LGBTQ content is inherently about sexuality No, it's not. It's about people. Simply mentioning that someone is lesbian in a video does not make the content "inherently about sexuality." The idea that everything related to LGBTQ issues is inherently sexual in nature is one of the most toxic ones to people with those identities. It maintains the idea that their very existence taboo, something you're not allowed to talk about in public, and certainly not around children! When talking about LBGTQ identities around children, normalizing their existence, is one of the most powerful things to help LGBTQ children understand and accept their identities, and help straight, cisgender children recognize that LGBTQ children are fine, normal, and not something to be feared or reviled.
- jbob2000 7y ago
  I’m struggling to understand what an LGBTQ identity is if it isn’t related to sexuality. The definition of a lesbian is a woman who has sexual preferences for women. If a woman doesn’t have sexual preferences for other women, but still likes them, then we just call them “friends”, no? She isn’t a lesbian just because she has female friends. And now we get into our semantic debate; is LGBTQ content any content that is generated by a member of that group? So if a gay man talks about skateboarding, is it LGBTQ content? Or is it only LGBTQ content when the topic is literally about lesbians, gays, bis, and transsexuals? If you talk about sexuality, you’re talking about sexuality, so you’re going to get hit with these censors. If you talk about skateboarding, you aren’t talking about sexuality, so you won’t get censored.

rjf72 7y ago

Everything makes a lot more sense if you don't look at advertiser decisions as moral ones, but rather as economic ones. LGBT is laden with a number of controversial and polarizing issues. This means something that is advertising on a video where this is a meaningful focus, whether positive or negative, may result in controversy. And advertisers can't win in controversy. If they withdraw advertising, one group is pissed. If they don't withdraw advertising, another group is pissed. So they see it in their best interest to avoid controversy altogether simply as a means of maximizing their economic return. And so you get the end result - advertisers are drawn to bland and inoffensive content. I'd hypothesize this also goes some way towards explaining the deterioration of music which went from invariable social commentary tied to the issues of the day to a million different versions of 'oh baby i love you' as the top tracks. Dylan to Bieber in 40 years. What progress...