3 ms·

The problem is that there wasn't a rule that could be used to take a misleading video down. Now there is. Finding out a video is maliciously fabricated is a di

by speff 3y ago

The problem is that there wasn't a rule that could be used to take a misleading video down. Now there is. Finding out a video is maliciously fabricated is a different problem.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> The problem is that there wasn't a rule that could be used to take a misleading video down. Of course there was. The community guidelines have prohibited impersonation and misinformation for years.
- speff 3y ago
  From the report button on a youtube video: Misinformation - Content that is misleading or deceptive with serious risk of egregious harm. That sounds like a quagmire of subjectivity to enforce. You can argue whether generated content was created to mislead or whether it would cause _egregious_ harm. Now there's no more arguing. Is it generated or is it real - and is it marked if generated? I still fail to see the downside here.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    You're acting like this is a court with a judge. The company makes up subjective rules and then subjectively enforces them. There was never any arguing to begin with, they just ban you if they don't like you, or at random for no apparent reason, and you have no recourse. > Now there's no more arguing. Is it generated or is it real - and is it marked if generated? I still fail to see the downside here. How is this supposed to lead to less arguing? If there was an easy way to tell if something is AI-generated then you wouldn't need the user to tag it. When there isn't, now you have to argue about whether it is or not -- or if it obviously is, whether it then has to be tagged, because it obviously is and they've given that as an exception.
    - speff 3y ago
      Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation - they do have a review process and make an attempt at following the rules they set. They can ban you for any reason...but they generally don't unless you're clearly breaking a rule. I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of finding out if it was actually generated - once again, that's a different problem. One that I already mentioned 2 comments back. My point was that there is less subjectivity with this rule. If the content is found to have been generated and isn't marked, then there are clear grounds to remove the video. What youtube does when there is doubt is not known yet. I don't deal in "well this _could_ lead to this".
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation - they do have a review process and make an attempt at following the rules they set. They can ban you for any reason...but they generally don't unless you're clearly breaking a rule. They use (with some irony) AI and other algorithms to determine if you're breaking the rules, often leading to arbitrary or nonsensical results, which the review process frequently fails to address. > I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of finding out if it was actually generated - once again, that's a different problem. It isn't a different problem, it's the problem. You want people to label things because otherwise you're not sure, but because of that problem exactly, you have no way of reliably or objectively enforcing the labeling requirement. And you specifically have no way to do it in the cases where it most matters because it's hard to tell.
      - pixl97 3y ago
        >Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation At a mom and pop you could at least talk to a person and figure out what happen. >I don't deal in "well this _could_ lead to this" Did you not learn from the entire DMCA thing? Remember the thing where piles tech people warned "Wow, this is going to be used as a weapon to cause problems" and then it was used as a weapon to cause problems. Well, welcome to the next weapon that is going to be used to cause problems.
        speff 3y ago
poszlem 3y ago
Of course, YouTube is well-known for its methodical approach to video removal, strictly adhering to transparent guidelines, rather than deciding based on the "computer says no" principle.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Knock knock Who's there dmcAI takedown notice!
frumper 3y ago
It sounds like it could also be used to take down a video someone thinks is fake. Proving it may be easy in some cases, but in other's it may be quite difficult.

by speff 3y ago

The problem is that there wasn't a rule that could be used to take a misleading video down. Now there is. Finding out a video is maliciously fabricated is a different problem.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> The problem is that there wasn't a rule that could be used to take a misleading video down. Of course there was. The community guidelines have prohibited impersonation and misinformation for years.

speff 3y ago
From the report button on a youtube video: Misinformation - Content that is misleading or deceptive with serious risk of egregious harm. That sounds like a quagmire of subjectivity to enforce. You can argue whether generated content was created to mislead or whether it would cause _egregious_ harm. Now there's no more arguing. Is it generated or is it real - and is it marked if generated? I still fail to see the downside here.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  You're acting like this is a court with a judge. The company makes up subjective rules and then subjectively enforces them. There was never any arguing to begin with, they just ban you if they don't like you, or at random for no apparent reason, and you have no recourse. > Now there's no more arguing. Is it generated or is it real - and is it marked if generated? I still fail to see the downside here. How is this supposed to lead to less arguing? If there was an easy way to tell if something is AI-generated then you wouldn't need the user to tag it. When there isn't, now you have to argue about whether it is or not -- or if it obviously is, whether it then has to be tagged, because it obviously is and they've given that as an exception.
  - speff 3y ago
    Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation - they do have a review process and make an attempt at following the rules they set. They can ban you for any reason...but they generally don't unless you're clearly breaking a rule. I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of finding out if it was actually generated - once again, that's a different problem. One that I already mentioned 2 comments back. My point was that there is less subjectivity with this rule. If the content is found to have been generated and isn't marked, then there are clear grounds to remove the video. What youtube does when there is doubt is not known yet. I don't deal in "well this _could_ lead to this".
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation - they do have a review process and make an attempt at following the rules they set. They can ban you for any reason...but they generally don't unless you're clearly breaking a rule. They use (with some irony) AI and other algorithms to determine if you're breaking the rules, often leading to arbitrary or nonsensical results, which the review process frequently fails to address. > I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of finding out if it was actually generated - once again, that's a different problem. It isn't a different problem, it's the problem. You want people to label things because otherwise you're not sure, but because of that problem exactly, you have no way of reliably or objectively enforcing the labeling requirement. And you specifically have no way to do it in the cases where it most matters because it's hard to tell.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      >Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation At a mom and pop you could at least talk to a person and figure out what happen. >I don't deal in "well this _could_ lead to this" Did you not learn from the entire DMCA thing? Remember the thing where piles tech people warned "Wow, this is going to be used as a weapon to cause problems" and then it was used as a weapon to cause problems. Well, welcome to the next weapon that is going to be used to cause problems.
      - speff 3y ago

poszlem 3y ago

Of course, YouTube is well-known for its methodical approach to video removal, strictly adhering to transparent guidelines, rather than deciding based on the "computer says no" principle.

pixl97 3y ago
Knock knock Who's there dmcAI takedown notice!

frumper 3y ago

It sounds like it could also be used to take down a video someone thinks is fake. Proving it may be easy in some cases, but in other's it may be quite difficult.