First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply YouTube heroes mass censorship
Posted 9/24/16

TheOmegaForce70941 wrote:

No that would just be you being a dick to everyone and wasteful of cash as it would cost about $100/year to have a reliable web hosting. But congratulation for not getting what's bad about it


$100 a year? Try $100 a month for a half-decent VS. And, I don't get what's bad about it? More like, I'm fairly aware of the fact that there are plenty of douchebags around who thinks the internet is some kind a democracy where they get to have a say in everything. "Boo-hoo-hoo, some moderator on CR told me to shut the fuck up; I'm being oppressed by the big man upstairs!" No, you're not. If you entered my website, my DOMAIN, my house, and started to move my furniture around and paint on my walls, I would kick you the out the door. You're not being oppressed just because I won't let you fuck up my house. I'm not the one being a dick; you are. You're the guest waltzing into my house thinking you're allowed to do whatever you want without consequence. Just because my house has a door, and a doorbell, and I choose to let you into my hallway, doesn't mean I automatically give you permission to paint a penis on my TV with a fucking permanent marker, and piss all over my floor. "Freedom of speech! PC bullshit! SJW!" This isn't town square. This isn't society. This isn't the government. It's my fucking house, and there are certain limitations as to what I will allow you to do in my house. I'll tell you what's happening. What's happening is that people like me put sticks in your wheels to make you realize what an inconsequential little shit you are, and you don't like it, oh boo-hoo you. Have a napkin. Nobody, absolutely nobody gives a shit about you, and how you can't express yourself the way you like it. If you want to express yourself, open up your own god damn website. Spend YOUR OWN TIME and YOUR OWN MONEY on it. AND THEN, when I come over to YOUR website, and fuck up YOUR shit, we'll see how long it will take before you kick ME out.

And before anyone gets to it: No, I don't have a Google / YouTube account, and I'm not defending their shit, I'm just calling you out on your BULLshit. That's all it is.
69881 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 9/24/16

runec wrote:


zinjashike wrote:
They can't say they advocate free speech and introduce a tool contradictory with it expecting to be taken seriously. Pure garbage.


One more time kids, this time with feeling! Say it with me now: Free speech is not freedom from consequence.


Oh bugger off. We're discussing the ability of mass flagging regardless of content, but thanks for showing lack of understanding in yet another area.

10593 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Rabbit Horse
Online
Posted 9/24/16

zinjashike wrote:
It would be paid staff for review of flagged items, specifically those that are monetized as they impact livelihoods. Some automation of comments would be the middle ground. If they can't do that then it's time to admit YouTube is a failure and impractical for today and should have the plug pulled.

The service is not free. They keep track of your demographics for monetization. If it's not profitable to run then it was a pipe dream that should fold. Pretty simple. They can't say they advocate free speech and introduce a tool contradictory with it expecting to be taken seriously. Pure garbage.

i'm pretty sure the whole reason Youtube have a horrible (or at least used to have) copyright system in place is because they just can't afford to pay so many people to review flagged items. given the sheer size of Youtube itself, it's not hard to see why. they at least changed it so that the monetization doesn't automatically go to the one reporting the video.

as for automation, it's a good idea, but in practice, it's unlikely to be that effective. people know how to bypass the filters. they do it all the time.
they would also need to somehow have the system know the intricacies of different languages (something that's very subtle could actually be very offensive in one language for example, even if no expletives are actually said). language is complicated, and it's still an active area of research in AI and machine learning. we're still not at the point where a machine can pinpoint the nuances of a sentence and know if it can be considered offensive or not (not sure whether to be thankful about it or not)

now, Youtube is still successful - or i'd think so, otherwise Google would have sold it by now - but they don't want to spend millions of dollars a year to moderate content. especially since they're not being paid (enough) to do so.

before you suggest "mod volunteers", there's no guarantee that they won't abuse their power.
people have complained for a long time that Youtube was filled with trolls. that was their sustainable solution to the problem.
if you can find a better approach that won't make them lose a ton of money in the process (hiring mods for example), you're always welcome to contact them.


"They keep track of your demographics for monetization."

they need to pay for the servers somehow, and having several servers around the world is probably not cheap.
46382 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Sweden
Online
Posted 9/24/16 , edited 9/24/16

Hrafna wrote:


TheOmegaForce70941 wrote:

No that would just be you being a dick to everyone and wasteful of cash as it would cost about $100/year to have a reliable web hosting. But congratulation for not getting what's bad about it


$100 a year? Try $100 a month for a half-decent VS. And, I don't get what's bad about it? More like, I'm fairly aware of the fact that there are plenty of douchebags around who thinks the internet is some kind a democracy where they get to have a say in everything. "Boo-hoo-hoo, some moderator on CR told me to shut the fuck up; I'm being oppressed by the big man upstairs!" No, you're not. If you entered my website, my DOMAIN, my house, and started to move my furniture around and paint on my walls, I would kick you the out the door. You're not being oppressed just because I won't let you fuck up my house. I'm not the one being a dick; you are. You're the guest waltzing into my house thinking you're allowed to do whatever you want without consequence. Just because my house has a door, and a doorbell, and I choose to let you into my hallway, doesn't mean I automatically give you permission to paint a penis on my TV with a fucking permanent marker, and piss all over my floor. "Freedom of speech! PC bullshit! SJW!" This isn't town square. This isn't society. This isn't the government. It's my fucking house, and there are certain limitations as to what I will allow you to do in my house. I'll tell you what's happening. What's happening is that people like me put sticks in your wheels to make you realize what an inconsequential little shit you are, and you don't like it, oh boo-hoo you. Have a napkin. Nobody, absolutely nobody gives a shit about you, and how you can't express yourself the way you like it. If you want to express yourself, open up your own god damn website. Spend YOUR OWN TIME and YOUR OWN MONEY on it. AND THEN, when I come over to YOUR website, and fuck up YOUR shit, we'll see how long it will take before you kick ME out.

And before anyone gets to it: No, I don't have a Google / YouTube account, and I'm not defending their shit, I'm just calling you out on your BULLshit. That's all it is.


Funny thing, I already have multiple websites and are working on a html5/javascript video player for one of them. So I coudn't care less about what I can and can't do on youtube as I'll be able to do whatever I wabt on my dojo (website). And no I don't think the internet is some kind of democracy...

It's funny how you mentioned it's their domain With their rules, when what their doing is literally like opening up their door to pretty much everyone and anyone without checking who they are or what their doing once their in. Oh and nobody said a thing about freedom of speach before you, all that was said before was that sjw might abuse it. As their pretty mucj always looking to create a safe space. Like I said before, I don't think you understand why this is bad. Oh btw this post below just flew up on 4chan...



Aw how cute you want me to feel sad for you getting in a little fight with a CR mod, everyone have prob gotten on the bad side with a mod once or twice
28204 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/24/16

zinjashike wrote:


runec wrote:


zinjashike wrote:
They can't say they advocate free speech and introduce a tool contradictory with it expecting to be taken seriously. Pure garbage.


One more time kids, this time with feeling! Say it with me now: Free speech is not freedom from consequence.


Oh bugger off. We're discussing the ability of mass flagging regardless of content, but thanks for showing lack of understanding in yet another area.


If that's what you were talking about than you shouldn't have used the term "free speech". If you're not intending to refer to free speech than don't, you know, talk about free speech. ;p

As for mass flagging, that's not a feature everyone gets. You need to build up to that level. Something you can't do without earning points by accurately flagging individual videos. They aren't just opening up the flood gates on high level moderation tools. That, specifically, seems to require 100 points. At a rate of 1 point per accurately flagged video.

This system is crowd sourced but it is not automated or unmoderated. User reports are still reviewed and you're only awarded points if your flag was actually accurate. So someone from Youtube still reviews your work and decides if you're properly flagging videos or just being a dick.

Youtube is not allowing users to take action directly themselves ( that would be abject chaos ).


69881 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 9/24/16 , edited 9/24/16

runec wrote:

If that's what you were talking about than you shouldn't have used the term "free speech". If you're not intending to refer to free speech than don't, you know, talk about free speech. ;p


Mass flagging will be able to be used to censor speech without ever actually checking content of videos. Basically, it means someone can start flagging for ideological reasoning. It doesn't matter if it's right, left, trolls/SJW, etc. It's a bad fucking idea to allow flagging without content review.


As for mass flagging, that's not a feature everyone gets. You need to build up to that level. Something you can't do without earning points by accurately flagging individual videos.


Youtube doesn't seem to hire staff to check flagging as is! Who's going to identify it's accurate? Because only major channels seem to have a chance of getting restored after getting report bombed.


They aren't just opening up the flood gates on high level moderation tools. That, specifically, seems to require 100 points. At a rate of 1 point per accurately flagged video.


Assuming anyone is actually checking accuracy? Please, do tell, who is actually checking for accuracy as is today!?


This system is crowd sourced but it is not automated or unmoderated. User reports are still reviewed and you're only awarded points if your flag was actually accurate.


I'm banking on horseshit considering how Youtube currently works.


So someone from Youtube still reviews your work and decides if you're properly flagging videos or just being a dick.


So they're paying staff to actually review flags now? Because in a lot of cases, that seems to have been decidedly not the case. In fact they've started randomly removing videos they think is inappropriate simply "because" rather than actual definable reasons . . . like the last time they released a bot to go and demonetize tons of stuff.


Youtube is not allowing users to take action directly themselves ( that would be abject chaos ).


Cool, please cite where Google has shown they will be using dedicated paid staff to review flags, equally the availability of staff, and expected hired amount to adequately deal with flags.


Youtube has not shown integrity in their promises and guarantees, and instead has shown their programs repeatedly cause more harm than good.
28204 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/24/16

zinjashike wrote:
Mass flagging will be able to be used to censor speech without ever actually checking content of videos. Basically, it means someone can start flagging for ideological reasoning. It doesn't matter if it's right, left, trolls/SJW, etc. It's a bad fucking idea to allow flagging without content review.


So, to TLDR your argument:
Youtube is not going to do the very thing they just said they are going to do because you don't believe they will do it?

Well, I'm convinced. -.-
Posted 9/24/16

TheOmegaForce70941 wrote:

Funny thing, I already have multiple websites and are working on a html5/javascript video player for one of them. So I coudn't care less about what I can and can't do on youtube as I'll be able to do whatever I wabt on my dojo (website). And no I don't think the internet is some kind of democracy...

It's funny how you mentioned it's their domain With their rules, when what their doing is literally like opening up their door to pretty much everyone and anyone without checking who they are or what their doing once their in. Oh and nobody said a thing about freedom of speach before you, all that was said before was that sjw might abuse it. As their pretty mucj always looking to create a safe space. Like I said before, I don't think you understand why this is bad. Oh btw this post below just flew up on 4chan...

Aw how cute you want me to feel sad for you getting in a little fight with a CR mod, everyone have prob gotten on the bad side with a mod once or twice


Oh, so you're the one with the cheap webhosts, not me. And, now you're not just some crybaby whining over "SJWs" and "the PC culture" anymore, like you so delicately implied in your first post, no, now it's about YouTube being in danger of being shut down due to some Skyrim spell called Mass Confusion that will surely break the internet, like Kim Kardashians ass-photo. Oh noes, the crisis! What ever shall we do? I'm so silly for not knowing how bad the situation is, and how oh-so-very seriously I should take it. But, maybe not, because apparently you've got multiple variants of YouTube on your cheap ass servers that can't host the very thing you say you're hosting, nor do you have the clientele to possess content on par with YouTube, unless of course you're simply syndicating videos from other sites such as YouTube, at which point you are-- whether you like it or not-- following the rules of those sites anyway. So, where would you like your rationalizations to end up at, hmm?
69881 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 9/24/16 , edited 9/24/16

runec wrote:


zinjashike wrote:
Mass flagging will be able to be used to censor speech without ever actually checking content of videos. Basically, it means someone can start flagging for ideological reasoning. It doesn't matter if it's right, left, trolls/SJW, etc. It's a bad fucking idea to allow flagging without content review.


So, to TLDR your argument:
Youtube is not going to do the very thing they just said they are going to do because you don't believe they will do it?

Well, I'm convinced. -.-


You're saying "Youtube said they're doing it, so we should believe it!" My response is simple: Youtube has in general shown a lack of transparency and arbitrarily chooses when to enforce things such as TOC on flagged content and often sends out automated junk when it's contested. Knowing issues prevalent with Youtube in particular, I put forth the notion that being skeptical of their claims is the more logical conclusion based on a poor track record. They don't deserve the benefit of the doubt as they haven't proven themselves . . . well, ever really.

Mass flagging serves no purpose and has other issues associated that haven't been answered:

1. If report is working properly already, why crowd source it? We have issues with massive flag campaigns already taking down videos - what preventative measure is being implemented? "Accuracy" is vague, which leads to point two.

2. you argue that Youtube will review "accuracy" - how is this being performed? By a human, or by a bot (which are notorious for mistakes)? If human will this person be a paid employee of Youtube with financial and not ideological motives, the former dictating impartial judgement?

3. After one gets "100 accurate" flags, will they continue to be reviewed for accuracy with regularity or do they get Youtube tenure effectively with little to no oversight?

4. Mass flagging as shown by the video shows a grid of videos simply being selected. Does it actually force that the content be viewed in full or to a significant degree before it can be included in a flag, or can they just flag after getting this tool? The video seems to indicate the latter.

For such a feature to be worthwhile it would have to be under constant review and actions taken by users would have to be delayed to prevent potential damage. It would require hiring of an impartial staff dedicated to review. They don't do this as is in flagging campaigns, so to believe they've fixed the system without explicitly addressing it strikes me as being willfully naive.

The points should be very clear - Youtube is rolling out a program with little to no transparency and judging by how they currently handle things (they don't) we estimate more damage being done (Youtube typical) and in effect hurting speech. To say we should take Youtube at face value isn't convincing in the least. We use history to predict future consequences, and Youtube has a very, very poor history in how they handle things in general.

The fact that Youtube loses money already leads me to believe they aren't likely going to invest in addressing these concerns adequately. And I'll be honest, I would LOVE to be wrong.
Posted 9/24/16
I already hate this idea
77 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/25/16

zinjashike wrote:


runec wrote:


zinjashike wrote:
They can't say they advocate free speech and introduce a tool contradictory with it expecting to be taken seriously. Pure garbage.


One more time kids, this time with feeling! Say it with me now: Free speech is not freedom from consequence.


Oh bugger off. We're discussing the ability of mass flagging regardless of content, but thanks for showing lack of understanding in yet another area.



Well, regardless of what is being said. Free speech is only a right when the government is trying to intervene.

Youtube can censor whatever the hell they want.

Let alone, I feel this is more of reactionary response from fans over anything. Youtube heroes is going to have abuse, but chances are very high nobody will be affected by it simply because of the time needed to gain any real admin powers through it.

That is to say, people who can abuse their power are probably so engrossed in it they will be afraid of losing their authority.

It's like moderators on big sites, yes they can abuse their powers, but the checks and balances in it are that abusing their power can quickly, and often will, lead to them losing that power. Something which they adamantly do not want to happen.

Also, if youtube heroes does have a lot of abuse, chances are high they will create a system where other users have to verify whatever established rule is being broken, which makes it much harder to abuse because it requires more than one person on board.

It wouldn't serve youtubes best interest to let people just run around abusing authority.

It's one thing to have a mass flag from content ID, it's another to have people intentionally mass flagging otherwise conforming videos.
1335 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/25/16
I signed up to flag the other Heroes accounts :P

Pumpkin Spice Latte, you say? *TRIGGERED!*
69881 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 9/25/16

senorclown wrote:

Well, regardless of what is being said. Free speech is only a right when the government is trying to intervene.


No one has said anything different now have they? It's like every person under the sun somehow believes this is a defense against accusations of censorship. Whether it's legal or not isn't the fucking point. Between this and stupid quotes some people like throwing around I'd swear you'd be A-OK with censorship by the government if it was legal - as if somehow legality, ethics, and morality are one in the same.


Youtube can censor whatever the hell they want.


Yes, and people can/should criticize it! Any developed society that believes in freedom of speech should speak out against censorship regardless of where it occurs.


Let alone, I feel this is more of reactionary response from fans over anything.


Content creators have spoken against this horseshit too, you know, ones with livelihoods that depend on this. But please, discount them too.


Youtube heroes is going to have abuse, but chances are very high nobody will be affected by it simply because of the time needed to gain any real admin powers through it.


I don't care how you feel about it, there are trolls that WILL take advantage of it if they can. Maybe you haven't seen how 4chan and the like can spend ages tracking a target if they can get a kick out of it. There's people that spend months that try to make connections based on obscure singular threads. And you don't think anyone will abuse it.

*insert Bender laughing harder*


That is to say, people who can abuse their power are probably so engrossed in it they will be afraid of losing their authority.


Hardly. It depends on if there's actual real chance of the power being lost. It's extremely hard to get someone removed from sitting on a Wiki page for example that has an axe to grind and no life. Similar with forums where the admins are complacent or apathetic to the mod staff allowing them to power trip.


It's like moderators on big sites, yes they can abuse their powers, but the checks and balances in it are that abusing their power can quickly, and often will, lead to them losing that power. Something which they adamantly do not want to happen.


Only if those in charge actually care to manage it. Youtube history doesn't look promising.


Also, if youtube heroes does have a lot of abuse, chances are high they will create a system where other users have to verify whatever established rule is being broken, which makes it much harder to abuse because it requires more than one person on board.


Which is a breeding ground for ideology driven pushes making it easy to co-opt by those that jump on board first. Whoo. Great way to make sure popular opinions prevail and minority opinions will get suppressed if controversial.


It wouldn't serve youtubes best interest to let people just run around abusing authority.


Youtube's bleeding money. The logical thing to do would to be booting anything unprofitable which this likely would assist with. Anything controversial that is hard to make money can be cornered and killed. Much easier than Google admitting Youtube was a failure that can't sustain itself and having to pull the plug on it.


It's one thing to have a mass flag from content ID, it's another to have people intentionally mass flagging otherwise conforming videos.


There's been tons of campaigns to get shit removed and channels banned which have traditionally caused a good deal of damage to channel owners. These have proven effective consistently because Youtube protects their image and not content creators. They're now likely going to make such campaigns even easier in the long run.

When people highlight these concerns though clearly they're insane and should shut-up because it's legal

To reiterate I hope I'm wrong, but based on their track record the community seems to agree that Youtube will likely fuck people over again.
46382 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Sweden
Online
Posted 9/25/16 , edited 9/25/16

Hrafna wrote:


TheOmegaForce70941 wrote:

Funny thing, I already have multiple websites and are working on a html5/javascript video player for one of them. So I coudn't care less about what I can and can't do on youtube as I'll be able to do whatever I wabt on my dojo (website). And no I don't think the internet is some kind of democracy...

It's funny how you mentioned it's their domain With their rules, when what their doing is literally like opening up their door to pretty much everyone and anyone without checking who they are or what their doing once their in. Oh and nobody said a thing about freedom of speach before you, all that was said before was that sjw might abuse it. As their pretty mucj always looking to create a safe space. Like I said before, I don't think you understand why this is bad. Oh btw this post below just flew up on 4chan...

Aw how cute you want me to feel sad for you getting in a little fight with a CR mod, everyone have prob gotten on the bad side with a mod once or twice


Oh, so you're the one with the cheap webhosts, not me. And, now you're not just some crybaby whining over "SJWs" and "the PC culture" anymore, like you so delicately implied in your first post, no, now it's about YouTube being in danger of being shut down due to some Skyrim spell called Mass Confusion that will surely break the internet, like Kim Kardashians ass-photo. Oh noes, the crisis! What ever shall we do? I'm so silly for not knowing how bad the situation is, and how oh-so-very seriously I should take it. But, maybe not, because apparently you've got multiple variants of YouTube on your cheap ass servers that can't host the very thing you say you're hosting, nor do you have the clientele to possess content on par with YouTube, unless of course you're simply syndicating videos from other sites such as YouTube, at which point you are-- whether you like it or not-- following the rules of those sites anyway. So, where would you like your rationalizations to end up at, hmm?


Aw how cute you are, you seem to think I ever said a word about competing with youtube. Something I never did, my point was that there's where my vids will go from now on, so I'm not really being "censored" by anyone here. The once who can compete with youtube are other massive websites like Dailymotion and vimeo to name a few. Facebook also are building a video service so they might eventually be able to compete with youtube numbers some day.



I never said youtube were in danger of being shut down, nor did I say this was about SJW (only applied that some of them will use this to create a safe space for themselves) while others will just mass flag everything they come by. This isn't about some "mass confusion" lilke you seem to think. You really have a hard time understanding what's being said to you, I'm starting to see why mods told you to shut up... Either way you don't seem to be capable of understanding that this new system of theirs will only end up being abused to limit people who use the service
17181 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 9/25/16

namealreadytaken wrote:


zinjashike wrote:
It would be paid staff for review of flagged items, specifically those that are monetized as they impact livelihoods. Some automation of comments would be the middle ground. If they can't do that then it's time to admit YouTube is a failure and impractical for today and should have the plug pulled.

The service is not free. They keep track of your demographics for monetization. If it's not profitable to run then it was a pipe dream that should fold. Pretty simple. They can't say they advocate free speech and introduce a tool contradictory with it expecting to be taken seriously. Pure garbage.

i'm pretty sure the whole reason Youtube have a horrible (or at least used to have) copyright system in place is because they just can't afford to pay so many people to review flagged items. given the sheer size of Youtube itself, it's not hard to see why. they at least changed it so that the monetization doesn't automatically go to the one reporting the video.

as for automation, it's a good idea, but in practice, it's unlikely to be that effective. people know how to bypass the filters. they do it all the time.
they would also need to somehow have the system know the intricacies of different languages (something that's very subtle could actually be very offensive in one language for example, even if no expletives are actually said). language is complicated, and it's still an active area of research in AI and machine learning. we're still not at the point where a machine can pinpoint the nuances of a sentence and know if it can be considered offensive or not (not sure whether to be thankful about it or not)

now, Youtube is still successful - or i'd think so, otherwise Google would have sold it by now - but they don't want to spend millions of dollars a year to moderate content. especially since they're not being paid (enough) to do so.

before you suggest "mod volunteers", there's no guarantee that they won't abuse their power.
people have complained for a long time that Youtube was filled with trolls. that was their sustainable solution to the problem.
if you can find a better approach that won't make them lose a ton of money in the process (hiring mods for example), you're always welcome to contact them.


"They keep track of your demographics for monetization."

they need to pay for the servers somehow, and having several servers around the world is probably not cheap.
Youtube/google has enough money to say the least.....
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.