3 ms·
"[censored]" standalone is no better, because of the implication. If you want to go that route, pick something else. Voice: "Because lucky you, that's why" Ca
by scrollaway 6y ago
"[censored]" standalone is no better, because of the implication. If you want to go that route, pick something else.
Voice: "Because lucky you, that's why"
Caption 2: "Because f*ck you, that's why"
Caption 3: "Because [censored] you, that's why"
Caption 4: "Because [unintelligible] you, that's why"
You tell me, which one of these failure modes is better?
- filoleg 6y agoThe best failure mode is none of those. Using your example, the best one is the one that finds the closest approximate word that isn't a slur. That would solve both problems at once, because there is a really strong chance that the first closest guess that isn't a slur is the actual correct word that was said there. And in case it picks an incorrect word, it would have picked it either way and it would have been just as wrong. So if the voice said "Because lucky you, that's why", in case youtube autotranscript thinks it was "fuck" and not "lucky", it would either default to "lucky" (which is good) or another closest non-slur word like "mucky" or "rocky". And, in my opinion, this is way better than putting [censored] or any other workaround out of those you mentioned, because all of them have zero chance to end up as the correct word (in case the slur was detected incorrectly), while with the approach I described, it is very possible.
- scrollaway 6y agoI feel like we're arguing for the same thing.
- mantap 6y agoI don't think deaf users would agree with you. Because they are going to be trying to understand if they actually said lucky rather than fuck. Better to choose the best match, and fuck the prudes.
- derefr 6y agoThe false-positive case is more like, e.g. "[censored] the chicken crossed the road." There's no slur/curse that actually makes sense in that position, according to the rules of the English language, so there's no implication.
- scrollaway 6y agoThis thread isn't about what may usually happen, but rather about the potential damage of an outlier, such as auto-captioning a slur in a the speech of a foreign official with a heavy accent.
- segfaultbuserr 6y agoWhen YouTube was censoring slurs in automatic captions, it was just a simple search and removal. Caption 5: "Because you, that's why" Not the best failure mode, but it does completely prevent the damage, <del>and your argument about how censorship doesn't prevent damage doesn't apply</del>.
- scrollaway 6y agoMy argument was that bleeping doesn't prevent the damage, because there is an implication that a slur was said. Full removal or full replacement does.
- segfaultbuserr 6y agoI see, apologize for ignoring the context. I missed your grandparent comment.