3 ms·

Up Next and recommended videos don't require understanding the content of the videos. They could, as an example, find other users that watch similar videos and

Up Next and recommended videos don't require understanding the content of the videos. They could, as an example, find other users that watch similar videos and pick a video you haven't seen out of the things the other users have watched. It wouldn't surprise me if they use transcripts, but neither feature strictly requires it. I think the real risk here is users extrapolating from "YouTube can automatically respond to the content of videos". The Mr Beast thing is still blowing up, could they automatically identify illegal lotteries? Could they identify things that aren't suitable for YouTube Kids but end up there anyways? So on and so forth, YouTube's moderation is basically always under fire. This seems like a risky mixed message to send. Being able to light up the Subscribe button doesn't imply the technical ability to do better moderation, but I also wouldn't want to be the guy that has to explain that and how it works to the Senate.

xattt 2y ago
It speaks to the fact that things that are most beneficial to Google have been finetuned to exploit eyeballs and pocketbooks. If they wanted to, or if their hand was forced, they’d be able to do the things that benefit the greater good. Don’t get started with the “it’s a slippery slope” kind of shit. Short of living in some society where it’s every man for himself, kids shouldn’t be playing lotteries
- chgs 2y ago
  Many people in tech are big proponents of the “every man for himself” randian distopyas
- everforward 2y ago
  There are significant differences in difficulty, but I do agree with the sentiment. Grepping for “like button” in a transcript is much easier and cheaper than training an LLM to check whether a lottery is legal or not. It also helps that there’s no counterparty risk with the like button. I don’t think anyone is trying to “trick” that feature, and it wouldn’t matter if they did.
mcphage 2y ago
> Could they identify things that aren't suitable for YouTube Kids but end up there anyways? I sure wish they did.
- HappMacDonald 2y ago
  They would detect that Avenue Q looks so much like Sesame Street and put that on Youtube Kids.
  - mcphage 2y ago
    I’d like to think that they’d be able to pick up on the song about porn…
aeternum 2y ago
They need it anyway to enforce copyright. Simple content hashing tricks don't work because people upload slightly cropped or mirrored copyrighted content. Understanding the content is ultimately the only way to properly enforce and discriminate IP theft vs. fair use at scale. And the Senate wants that feature as the IP lobby is strong.
- anticensor 2y ago
  YouTube actually can not tolerate fair use, due to the fact they work in countries with little to no fair use, such as Germany and Japan. They can only tolerate statutory exceptions to copyright that apply to all countries at once.
- everforward 2y ago
  Aren’t there fancy hashing algos that are resistant to that? I feel like I remember PhotoDNA still being able to match even after a surprising array of modifications. I want to say cropping and reversing could still match, but I don’t really recall and would strongly prefer to not have “how to beat PhotoDNA” in my search history.
  - aeternum 2y ago
    Yes there are quite a few algos and YT already uses many of them but it only takes one person to find a workaround then publish it and it again opens the floodgates. All the different mechanisms that youtube has used is an interesting rabbithole but its ultimately an unwinnable cat and mouse game unless you have an algo that understands the actual content. Even the human reporting has become weaponized. Don't like the message of a video? have a bunch of youtube accounts flag it and it gets demonetized.
3np 2y ago
> The Mr Beast thing is still blowing up, could they automatically identify illegal lotteries? OotL; Mind sharing a link or two? Familiar with MrB but no idea about anything blowing up. Quick search doesn't make the referenc obvious.
- everforward 2y ago
  https://youtu.be/k5xf40KrK3I?si=DQBLlGT_1jTrH-C9 https://youtu.be/k5xf40KrK3I?si=DQBLlGT_1jTrH-C9 That’s the original video that kicked it off. It’s pretty mundane as far as internet controversy goes. The lotteries were run poorly and as such were probably illegal, not exactly uncommon on YouTube. The show largely targets kids, so there’s some accusations of it effectively being gambling for kids. After that people dug into his whole life and found out one of his employees was convicted of statutory rape and he was aware, which is a bad look for a channel mostly watched by children. It’s like a 3/10 on internet controversy scales. Doing something common and dumb but not obviously malicious, and then just stuff that looks bad without concrete evidence anything bad actually happened. It’s not terribly interesting, I only saw because of a comedian making fun of it.

xattt 2y ago

It speaks to the fact that things that are most beneficial to Google have been finetuned to exploit eyeballs and pocketbooks. If they wanted to, or if their hand was forced, they’d be able to do the things that benefit the greater good. Don’t get started with the “it’s a slippery slope” kind of shit. Short of living in some society where it’s every man for himself, kids shouldn’t be playing lotteries

chgs 2y ago
Many people in tech are big proponents of the “every man for himself” randian distopyas
everforward 2y ago
There are significant differences in difficulty, but I do agree with the sentiment. Grepping for “like button” in a transcript is much easier and cheaper than training an LLM to check whether a lottery is legal or not. It also helps that there’s no counterparty risk with the like button. I don’t think anyone is trying to “trick” that feature, and it wouldn’t matter if they did.

mcphage 2y ago

> Could they identify things that aren't suitable for YouTube Kids but end up there anyways? I sure wish they did.

HappMacDonald 2y ago
They would detect that Avenue Q looks so much like Sesame Street and put that on Youtube Kids.
- mcphage 2y ago
  I’d like to think that they’d be able to pick up on the song about porn…

aeternum 2y ago

They need it anyway to enforce copyright. Simple content hashing tricks don't work because people upload slightly cropped or mirrored copyrighted content. Understanding the content is ultimately the only way to properly enforce and discriminate IP theft vs. fair use at scale. And the Senate wants that feature as the IP lobby is strong.

anticensor 2y ago
YouTube actually can not tolerate fair use, due to the fact they work in countries with little to no fair use, such as Germany and Japan. They can only tolerate statutory exceptions to copyright that apply to all countries at once.
everforward 2y ago
Aren’t there fancy hashing algos that are resistant to that? I feel like I remember PhotoDNA still being able to match even after a surprising array of modifications. I want to say cropping and reversing could still match, but I don’t really recall and would strongly prefer to not have “how to beat PhotoDNA” in my search history.
- aeternum 2y ago
  Yes there are quite a few algos and YT already uses many of them but it only takes one person to find a workaround then publish it and it again opens the floodgates. All the different mechanisms that youtube has used is an interesting rabbithole but its ultimately an unwinnable cat and mouse game unless you have an algo that understands the actual content. Even the human reporting has become weaponized. Don't like the message of a video? have a bunch of youtube accounts flag it and it gets demonetized.

3np 2y ago

> The Mr Beast thing is still blowing up, could they automatically identify illegal lotteries? OotL; Mind sharing a link or two? Familiar with MrB but no idea about anything blowing up. Quick search doesn't make the referenc obvious.

everforward 2y ago
https://youtu.be/k5xf40KrK3I?si=DQBLlGT_1jTrH-C9 https://youtu.be/k5xf40KrK3I?si=DQBLlGT_1jTrH-C9 That’s the original video that kicked it off. It’s pretty mundane as far as internet controversy goes. The lotteries were run poorly and as such were probably illegal, not exactly uncommon on YouTube. The show largely targets kids, so there’s some accusations of it effectively being gambling for kids. After that people dug into his whole life and found out one of his employees was convicted of statutory rape and he was aware, which is a bad look for a channel mostly watched by children. It’s like a 3/10 on internet controversy scales. Doing something common and dumb but not obviously malicious, and then just stuff that looks bad without concrete evidence anything bad actually happened. It’s not terribly interesting, I only saw because of a comedian making fun of it.