4 ms·

> list of arbitrarily banned words is that the list is arbitrary It's not arbitrary, it's a community norm. Not everyone in a community agrees with its norms,

> list of arbitrarily banned words is that the list is arbitrary It's not arbitrary, it's a community norm. Not everyone in a community agrees with its norms, but enough people do to keep it a norm. As community norms change, the rules change.

assttoasstmgr 4y ago
What "community norms" were violated in this instrumental song to require age verification? (Likely the most egregious example I can think of.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Mte6z7TQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Mte6z7TQI Stop making excuses for this horrible company. Or do we truly live in a world where all sorts of horrors have become socially acceptable yet a static image of a cartoon frog is deemed "adult content"?
- panarky 4y ago
  Just because you can find a handful of mistakes, or a thousand mistakes, or a hundred thousand mistakes, out of hundreds of billions of moderation decisions is not evidence of evil or malice. Thousands of warehouses filled with human beings trying to manage all of this manually would introduce far, far more errors and bias. If you hate YouTube then don't use it. There are plenty of competitors.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    Mistakes themselves aren't evidence of evil or malice, sure. But when you know your system is full of mistakes, and you intentionally choose not to set up a functional system to let people get the mistakes fixed, that is evil and malice.
    - panarky 4y ago
      I've been trying for two months to provision internet service with AT&T, not because I like AT&T, but because they're the only provider with fiber in my area. My emails aren't returned and every phone call only reaches people who have neither the ability nor the authority to fix the problem. Today AT&T called me, not with a solution, but with offers for twenty percent off wireless service. Now that I'm a customer, I'm on every marketing list, but I cannot access the service I paid for. AT&T's system is full of mistakes, and they haven't set up a functional system to let people get the mistakes fixed. I believe AT&T is an evil and malicious organization for other reasons, but the fact they are denying me internet connectivity is not one of them. This is either garden-variety incompetence, or it's a business decision that there's no ROI in fixing every broken process and edge case.
  - ehnto 4y ago
    > Just because you can find a handful of mistakes, or a thousand mistakes, or a hundred thousand mistakes, out of hundreds of billions of moderation decisions is not evidence of evil or malice. It's not a handful. Also, who cares if it's evil, malice, or incompetence, it's happening and it is YouTube that is making the mistakes. I think you might also be missing the point, people are annoyed at that there's no way to rectify these mistakes or speak to a reasonable agent of the company more so than that they happen in the first place. Algorithmic moderation could be okay, so long as you have the necessary human operated escape hatches, since you are in fact impacting humans with your algorithms in very real ways. There needs to be some point that you can talk to a human with the power to be reasonable.
  - xani_ 4y ago
    I can't say if you're saying satire or actually serious in your corporate cuckery
- tinus_hn 4y ago
  Hoe about this spoken word piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqvLTJfYnik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqvLTJfYnik
- teddyh 4y ago
  > Or do we truly live in a world where all sorts of horrors have become socially acceptable yet a static image of a cartoon frog is deemed "adult content"? Society has always had “outgroups”, to which anything is permissible. In medieval times, there were literal “outlaws”, to which laws did not apply, people who were fair game for anybody to kill without repercussions. Later, there were witches, satanists, heretics, anarchists, bolsheviks, jews, communists, homosexuals, pedophiles, terrorists, nazis, racists, and fascists. At some point in that list, your mind might have just said “But those people deserve it!”. But labels are mostly applied by other people; nobody declared themselves a witch. Do you truly want the law to be so weak as to not protect you, should you someday find yourself labeled and put on that list? That cartoon frog is, currently, on the list.
WalterBright 4y ago
The rules of what you can and cannot say, and what content can be shown and what cannot, have changed a lot in my lifetime. At least we can still criticize the President. I wonder how long that will last.
BiteCode_dev 4y ago
It is a matter of power because most people in europe don't care about people saying the english word 'fuck' but we can't see the video either. Just like it's weird to hear talking about god as a justification for politics, or people self censoring 'nigger' into the 'n word' in a conversation reporting the usage of the word. Or hidding nipples but showing violent death. Or demonetizing videos showing pics of september 11 in a respectful context. It's power because the american culture is strong enough to impose the view of a subset of communities to the rest of the world.
- panarky 4y ago
  I don't like having to click through endless cookie warnings on every website just because Europe decided to enact another bullshit regulation that doesn't accomplish anything, but European culture is strong enough to waste even more of everyone's time and make the web even shittier than it was before.
  - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
    You don't click through cookies just because europe decided so, you click through them because corporations (most of them american) decided that tracking you was so juicy that it was worth it to make you pay this price. I have plenty of websites using cookies, but because we are not invading your privacy, we don't need a banner. You are blaming laws adding informed consent instead of the bullies that milk every cent out of spying. Instead of learning, wow the web is rotten there is so much tracking, you complain to the doctor showing you cancer in your lung. Also, what's funny is that this banner is only legal in europe, we don't impose it on the rest of the world. Again, corporations decided it was just easier to apply it to everyone. They have a choice. But we can't uncensor youtube content. We dont have a choice. I'd be ok with a pop up "this video contain images of september 11, do you want to watch it uncensored?" that is mandatory only to americans. But we don't have that. Instead, the video is either not published, or removed from any way to discover it. Not to mention comparing the need for a click, and the addition of a choice to not be tracked, cannot remotely be compared to forced format for most content. It's neither of the same nature, nor the same scale. Even if you don't agree with any of that, the initial point of the comment stands: it's a matter of power.

assttoasstmgr 4y ago

What "community norms" were violated in this instrumental song to require age verification? (Likely the most egregious example I can think of.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Mte6z7TQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Mte6z7TQI Stop making excuses for this horrible company. Or do we truly live in a world where all sorts of horrors have become socially acceptable yet a static image of a cartoon frog is deemed "adult content"?

panarky 4y ago
Just because you can find a handful of mistakes, or a thousand mistakes, or a hundred thousand mistakes, out of hundreds of billions of moderation decisions is not evidence of evil or malice. Thousands of warehouses filled with human beings trying to manage all of this manually would introduce far, far more errors and bias. If you hate YouTube then don't use it. There are plenty of competitors.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Mistakes themselves aren't evidence of evil or malice, sure. But when you know your system is full of mistakes, and you intentionally choose not to set up a functional system to let people get the mistakes fixed, that is evil and malice.
  - panarky 4y ago
    I've been trying for two months to provision internet service with AT&T, not because I like AT&T, but because they're the only provider with fiber in my area. My emails aren't returned and every phone call only reaches people who have neither the ability nor the authority to fix the problem. Today AT&T called me, not with a solution, but with offers for twenty percent off wireless service. Now that I'm a customer, I'm on every marketing list, but I cannot access the service I paid for. AT&T's system is full of mistakes, and they haven't set up a functional system to let people get the mistakes fixed. I believe AT&T is an evil and malicious organization for other reasons, but the fact they are denying me internet connectivity is not one of them. This is either garden-variety incompetence, or it's a business decision that there's no ROI in fixing every broken process and edge case.
- ehnto 4y ago
  > Just because you can find a handful of mistakes, or a thousand mistakes, or a hundred thousand mistakes, out of hundreds of billions of moderation decisions is not evidence of evil or malice. It's not a handful. Also, who cares if it's evil, malice, or incompetence, it's happening and it is YouTube that is making the mistakes. I think you might also be missing the point, people are annoyed at that there's no way to rectify these mistakes or speak to a reasonable agent of the company more so than that they happen in the first place. Algorithmic moderation could be okay, so long as you have the necessary human operated escape hatches, since you are in fact impacting humans with your algorithms in very real ways. There needs to be some point that you can talk to a human with the power to be reasonable.
- xani_ 4y ago
  I can't say if you're saying satire or actually serious in your corporate cuckery
tinus_hn 4y ago
Hoe about this spoken word piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqvLTJfYnik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqvLTJfYnik
teddyh 4y ago
> Or do we truly live in a world where all sorts of horrors have become socially acceptable yet a static image of a cartoon frog is deemed "adult content"? Society has always had “outgroups”, to which anything is permissible. In medieval times, there were literal “outlaws”, to which laws did not apply, people who were fair game for anybody to kill without repercussions. Later, there were witches, satanists, heretics, anarchists, bolsheviks, jews, communists, homosexuals, pedophiles, terrorists, nazis, racists, and fascists. At some point in that list, your mind might have just said “But those people deserve it!”. But labels are mostly applied by other people; nobody declared themselves a witch. Do you truly want the law to be so weak as to not protect you, should you someday find yourself labeled and put on that list? That cartoon frog is, currently, on the list.

WalterBright 4y ago

The rules of what you can and cannot say, and what content can be shown and what cannot, have changed a lot in my lifetime. At least we can still criticize the President. I wonder how long that will last.

BiteCode_dev 4y ago

It is a matter of power because most people in europe don't care about people saying the english word 'fuck' but we can't see the video either. Just like it's weird to hear talking about god as a justification for politics, or people self censoring 'nigger' into the 'n word' in a conversation reporting the usage of the word. Or hidding nipples but showing violent death. Or demonetizing videos showing pics of september 11 in a respectful context. It's power because the american culture is strong enough to impose the view of a subset of communities to the rest of the world.

panarky 4y ago
I don't like having to click through endless cookie warnings on every website just because Europe decided to enact another bullshit regulation that doesn't accomplish anything, but European culture is strong enough to waste even more of everyone's time and make the web even shittier than it was before.
- BiteCode_dev 4y ago
  You don't click through cookies just because europe decided so, you click through them because corporations (most of them american) decided that tracking you was so juicy that it was worth it to make you pay this price. I have plenty of websites using cookies, but because we are not invading your privacy, we don't need a banner. You are blaming laws adding informed consent instead of the bullies that milk every cent out of spying. Instead of learning, wow the web is rotten there is so much tracking, you complain to the doctor showing you cancer in your lung. Also, what's funny is that this banner is only legal in europe, we don't impose it on the rest of the world. Again, corporations decided it was just easier to apply it to everyone. They have a choice. But we can't uncensor youtube content. We dont have a choice. I'd be ok with a pop up "this video contain images of september 11, do you want to watch it uncensored?" that is mandatory only to americans. But we don't have that. Instead, the video is either not published, or removed from any way to discover it. Not to mention comparing the need for a click, and the addition of a choice to not be tracked, cannot remotely be compared to forced format for most content. It's neither of the same nature, nor the same scale. Even if you don't agree with any of that, the initial point of the comment stands: it's a matter of power.