Content creators that don't produce content for 5 year-olds need to start looking somewhere else than YouTube.
One of the keys to YouTube's success is its sub feed. All the videos from all my favorite channels, all in one place. It's extremely convenient. People tend to take the path of least resistance.
People who make non-advertiser-friendly videos need to figure out some other kind of way to make their money. Patreon is excellent for that.
Further I do not buy the Not Ad friendly BS, there are TONS of Advertisers that would put (and have to try to buy ads) on some of those channels but Youtube either refuses them as Advertisers or otherwise does not give the Advertisers the proper control to pick and choose which channels they want to out ads on, it says you video is not ad friendly and that is that, the advertiser has not input in it.
Finally Advertisers care about eyeballs, they really do not care about the content of the ads UNTIL they get people complaining or boycotting their product.
Today there are a small number of permanently and perpetually offended people that are VERY vocal, and VERY loud on social media that have wielded undue influence over these YT Advertisers with their threats of boycotts and outrage. These people have no respect for the freedom of expression, and desire nothing more than to shut down the speech of anyone they disagree with.
source on this? I'd like to read more
It seems better that material which needs to be kept for history and remained uncensored due to advertising is on a site dedicated to that instead of a site which most people use for videos of recipes, memes, and great football headers.
And that's not even counting war footage.
I'm not hunting this stuff down, the only protection against watching this crap is a half second pause after the reporter says "Warning, the following may be considered graphic."
The funny thing is : I don't own a television; I just go to a diner with whatever garbage news channel everyone in the place likes at any given time for breakfast occasionally. Even brief casual glimpses at any given news channel are bound to get you an eye-full of gore or violence of some sort.
It's people's expectation for it to be perfect, and the egoic drive to blame someone when something goes wrong. There was no reason for the hype around this story... an AI determinator had a false positive. Thats not google attacking the videos, thats a technical issue and it needs to have zero feelings involved because the entire process happened in a damned computer incapable of feelings...
But everyone needs to feed their outrage porn addiction...
There is no perfect system. If its automated, there will be false positives (and negatives), if there is a human involved, you have a clear bias issue, if there is a group of humans involved, you have societal bias to deal with...
There is no perfect system for something like this, to the best answer is to use something like this, that gets it right most of the time... then clean up when it makes a mistake. And you shouldn't have to apologize for the false positive, people need to put on their big boy pants and stop pretending to be the victim when there is no victim to begin with...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-facebook...
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/07/facebook-censoring-lesbi...
1) Stop and frisk is BIASED heavily on race becuase its a HUMAN making the choice...
2) Stop and Frisk is the GOVERNMENT, and therefore actually pushes up against the constitution.
How do you see these things are remotely the same?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-facebook...
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/07/facebook-censoring-lesbi...
On the other, the Alphabet family don't have the support systems to clean up when they make a mistake.
Your second sentence is a technical argument, which makes your first a lie. Obviously Google disagreed, which is why they put this system into place. And if they were wrong about that they were wrong for technical reasons, not moral ones.
I mean, you can say there's a policy argument about accuracy vs. "justice" or whatever. It's a legitimate argument, and you can fault Google for a mistake here. But given that this was an automated system it's disingenuous to try to make more of this than is appropriate.
My assumption was that you were contrasting "technical" problems (whether or not Google was able to do this analysis in an automated way) with "moral" ones (Google was evil to have tried this). If that's not what you mean, can you spell it out more clearly?
What you guys and your downvotes are doing is trying to avoid making an argument on the moral issue directly (which is hard) and just taking potshots at Google for their technical failure as if it also constitutes a moral failure. And that's not fair.
If they shouldn't be doing this they shouldn't be doing this. Make that argument.
I'd say it's pretty capable.
Human raters are a fucking nightmare of inconsistency and bias. I'd guess this is more accurate at this point, and is only going to improve.
Policy solutions are political.
A policy is a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. A policy is a statement of intent, and is implemented as a procedure or protocol. - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy
"Previously we used to rely on humans to flag content, now we're using machine learning to flag content which goes through to a team of trained policy specialists all around the world which will then make decisions," a spokeswoman said..."So it’s not that machines are striking videos, it’s that we are using machine learning to flag the content which then goes through to humans."
"MEE lodged an appeal with YouTube and received this response: 'After further review of the content, we've determined that your video does violate our Community Guidelines and have upheld our original decision. We appreciate your understanding.'
Humans at YouTube made the decisions about removing videos. Then, on appeal they had a chance to change their minds but instead confirmed those decisions. Then, because of public outcry, YouTube decided it had been a mistake. 'The entire process happened in a damned computer incapable of feelings' is inaccurate.
Aside from but related to this story, many people are making a living off of YouTube ad revenues, and the AI is unpredictable in how it will respond in terms of promoting your video content on the front page, as links from other popular videos, and so forth. I think it's also unknown how the AI categorizes the content appropriateness of videos to advertisers, which if categorized the wrong way leaves your stuff unmonetizable.
Basically, people are throwing video content up, but have no way to properly have a feedback loop to gauge whether or not they violate the "proper" protocols that the AI rewards. This really is a problem of automation using (presumably) trained statistical rules where nobody really knows what specifically influences the decisions about their videos.
Do you see "race" in every bit of convo. If I said white chocolate or black chocolate, do the colors auto infer race somehow? If I prefer black or white choco what does that mean? If I prefer black or white or does that mean I'm destroying consuming black or white?
Just calm down.
It really seems they've bitten off more than their machine learning algorithms can chew here.
Machine Learning is just a way to launder bias. What will be defined as extremist by US companies will favor the West but discounting Western extremism and overplay non-Western extremism.