3 ms·

The article is low on examples which doesn't lend it much credibility but I can sort of understand where she's coming from because Google's AI has had similar i

by xmprt 6y ago

The article is low on examples which doesn't lend it much credibility but I can sort of understand where she's coming from because Google's AI has had similar issues in the past. Namely YouTube classifies LGBTQ+ content as not advertiser friendly and therefore doesn't recommend it as much and often demonitizes it.

ramblerman 6y ago
Would that not be based on the fact that, that content is somehow generating less revenue? Or you believe there is a more sinister reason?
- tobr 6y ago
  Videos with titles with certain words might be flagged and can’t have ads. As I understand it they’re trying to prevent pornographic content from being monetized, and their list of dirty words include neutral LGBTQ+ terms like “gay” and “lesbian”. This has been verified by experiments where people upload the same video with different titles. [1] So it’s yet another opaque system that might not have a sinister intention, but has a pretty sinister outcome. 1: https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/10/10/20893258/youtube-lgbtq-censorship-demonetization-nerd-city-algorithm-report https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/10/10/20893258/youtube-lgbt...
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    Reminds me of another case of the opposite with Xbox Live where "gay" and "lesbian" were being censored to try to prevent the then prevalent use as a term of abuse. To be frank to me the algorithim seems to be a scapegoat for society's own fucked up norms and practices. It isn't a moral process and expecting it to act like one isn't reasonable - it would be like demanding a cargo value calculator stop listing concentrated drugs as the most profitable commodity by to transport per mass and volume because addiction ruin lives and overdose ends them. It is terrible but it is accurately describing the status quo.
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  Off the top of my head, reasons could be: - LBGTQ populations are small, about 4-7% (usually quoted at 5%) of the US, and are generally clustered in big urban areas. Like, if you're a queer kid in rural TN you're moving or Nashville or NYC otherwise you gonna have bad time. But that also means it's a niche demographic that's in a few areas. That's a big deal if I'm buying ads for Miami or Denver or The Castro, but it's not broad appeal across the country. - LBGTQ isn't uniform in context and content; not a ton of lesbians are into boy-meets-boy stories, and not a lot of gay men are watching videos about Andrea Dworkin and S.C.U.M. - Not a lot of crossover appeal -- I know a few straight bourgeoisie white ladies that are all about queer culture, trying hard to be allies and all, but other than that there is little crossover. Even my wokest, Bernie-Sanders loving friends aren't watching LBGTQ vids and related content on the regular. Again, it's niche thing. - Serious flak from conservatives, be they Christian, Muslim, or Hindu, or a Communist Chinese government that's not especially LBGTQ-friendly. I can post e-sports videos that will garner millions of views, from Pakistan to China to Nigeria, but a queer critique of Harry Potter or League of Legends characters might be flagged or banned in most of those countries. There may be aggressive pushback and demonetization as well via lobbyists or religious groups. - As another poster said, flagging words like "gay" or "lesbian" as pornographic and blocking or demonetizing them accordingly.
m0zg 6y ago
Could it be that _advertisers_ do not want their ads shown next to LGBTQ+ content? For the same reason why men don't see ads for high heel shoes and facial creams, and women don't see ads for Cialis. If that's the case, you'll need to take it up with advertisers, not Google. If you want to make a clearer example, here's one: Google's ad classifiers used to almost always classify you as a man if you frequent engineering websites, much to the chagrin of many female engineers working at Google. I don't know if that's still the case, as I'm not a woman myself.
danielscrubs 6y ago
To be totally honest. How much depth can it be in articles that focus on which groups you have sex with?
- baddox 6y ago
  LGBTQ+ content is not limited to that.
  - collyw 6y ago
    It doesn't make a lot of sense to lump these groups together in my opinion. LGB seems quite different to T.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      They are lumped together because society has done so already. They are outside of the norms and are sexual minorities that challenge the old assumptions and frameworks like men always marry women and the only men without testicles are eunuchs. It is true that LGB are orienation while T is gender identity but they face the same issues. In a societal context where they were all essentially "equally normal as cis-straight" there wouldn't be much of an association just separate categories.

by xmprt 6y ago

ramblerman 6y ago

Would that not be based on the fact that, that content is somehow generating less revenue? Or you believe there is a more sinister reason?

tobr 6y ago
Videos with titles with certain words might be flagged and can’t have ads. As I understand it they’re trying to prevent pornographic content from being monetized, and their list of dirty words include neutral LGBTQ+ terms like “gay” and “lesbian”. This has been verified by experiments where people upload the same video with different titles. [1] So it’s yet another opaque system that might not have a sinister intention, but has a pretty sinister outcome. 1: https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/10/10/20893258/youtube-lgbtq-censorship-demonetization-nerd-city-algorithm-report https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/10/10/20893258/youtube-lgbt...
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  Reminds me of another case of the opposite with Xbox Live where "gay" and "lesbian" were being censored to try to prevent the then prevalent use as a term of abuse. To be frank to me the algorithim seems to be a scapegoat for society's own fucked up norms and practices. It isn't a moral process and expecting it to act like one isn't reasonable - it would be like demanding a cargo value calculator stop listing concentrated drugs as the most profitable commodity by to transport per mass and volume because addiction ruin lives and overdose ends them. It is terrible but it is accurately describing the status quo.
blaser-waffle 6y ago
Off the top of my head, reasons could be: - LBGTQ populations are small, about 4-7% (usually quoted at 5%) of the US, and are generally clustered in big urban areas. Like, if you're a queer kid in rural TN you're moving or Nashville or NYC otherwise you gonna have bad time. But that also means it's a niche demographic that's in a few areas. That's a big deal if I'm buying ads for Miami or Denver or The Castro, but it's not broad appeal across the country. - LBGTQ isn't uniform in context and content; not a ton of lesbians are into boy-meets-boy stories, and not a lot of gay men are watching videos about Andrea Dworkin and S.C.U.M. - Not a lot of crossover appeal -- I know a few straight bourgeoisie white ladies that are all about queer culture, trying hard to be allies and all, but other than that there is little crossover. Even my wokest, Bernie-Sanders loving friends aren't watching LBGTQ vids and related content on the regular. Again, it's niche thing. - Serious flak from conservatives, be they Christian, Muslim, or Hindu, or a Communist Chinese government that's not especially LBGTQ-friendly. I can post e-sports videos that will garner millions of views, from Pakistan to China to Nigeria, but a queer critique of Harry Potter or League of Legends characters might be flagged or banned in most of those countries. There may be aggressive pushback and demonetization as well via lobbyists or religious groups. - As another poster said, flagging words like "gay" or "lesbian" as pornographic and blocking or demonetizing them accordingly.

m0zg 6y ago

Could it be that _advertisers_ do not want their ads shown next to LGBTQ+ content? For the same reason why men don't see ads for high heel shoes and facial creams, and women don't see ads for Cialis. If that's the case, you'll need to take it up with advertisers, not Google. If you want to make a clearer example, here's one: Google's ad classifiers used to almost always classify you as a man if you frequent engineering websites, much to the chagrin of many female engineers working at Google. I don't know if that's still the case, as I'm not a woman myself.

danielscrubs 6y ago

To be totally honest. How much depth can it be in articles that focus on which groups you have sex with?

baddox 6y ago
LGBTQ+ content is not limited to that.
- collyw 6y ago
  It doesn't make a lot of sense to lump these groups together in my opinion. LGB seems quite different to T.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    They are lumped together because society has done so already. They are outside of the norms and are sexual minorities that challenge the old assumptions and frameworks like men always marry women and the only men without testicles are eunuchs. It is true that LGB are orienation while T is gender identity but they face the same issues. In a societal context where they were all essentially "equally normal as cis-straight" there wouldn't be much of an association just separate categories.