Hacker News Reader

Comment by spuz | Hacker News Reader

For creators such as Summoning Salt, YouTube should offer an option to manually review a video _before_ it is made public allowing him to edit it appropriately. After manual review, YouTube should guarantee they won't restrict the video after it's published. They could make this a paid option with a legally binding agreement should either party fail to meet their obligations.

I've never heard of the MPAA slapping a new certification on an already approved movie and if they did, I would imagine lawyers would get involved.

View on HN

> YouTube should offer an option to manually review a video _before_ it is made public

They already have a system like that, but the process is pretty crappy, for the reasons you outline:

- Youtube might add additional restrictions at any point without justification, so the early vetting process doesn't guarantee that the video is clear.

- Youtube requires that the video be set to "Limited" and vetters don't have access to "Private" videos (I think, I don't remember the exact details) which impacts viewing statistics of the video (basically Youtube thinks nobody watched the video for a while after its release and therefore it's not worth promoting).

I think "guarantee they won't restrict the video" isn't workable at Youtube's scale, but at the very least they should guarantee a proportional monetary compensation if additional restrictions are added after the fact.

if there are clear rules (like for example existing laws) of what is allowed and what not the scale really doesn't matter

That seems very naive. YouTube reviewers are not multi-disciplinary legal experts, and even legal experts disagree.

YouTube is not a spherical platform in a vacuum.

yes, I guess it is naive to expect platforms that are exempt from lawsuits specifically because they are neutral to content to behave neutral to content ...

> if there are clear rules (like for example existing laws) of what is allowed and what not the scale really doesn't matter

If that were true, then mature legal systems (which have had hundreds of years if not more to reach a point of clarity) would have very little controversy except possibly around newly passed laws.

But we observe the opposite. Legal systems which have been around for centuries creating tens of thousands of very-well-documented cases clarifying how these laws were applied, nevertheless find themselves constantly addressing new controversies.

> I've never heard of the MPAA slapping a new certification on an already approved movie and if they did, I would imagine lawyers would get involved.

Reminds me of a story from the video game industry. Halo 2 for Vista got delayed and had to have its packaging updated, all because ESRB changed their rating to include "Partial Nudity" after an obscure developer Easter egg was found [1].

[1] https://www.cbr.com/halo-2-re-issued-warning-dev-prank/

> I've never heard of the MPAA slapping a new certification on an already approved movie

At least in the UK, from what I understand, if you make a "not actually new" release (by adding something like a director's commentary), it has to be re-rated by the BBFC. There's also the case of, IIRC, "The Specialist" which was a 15 in cinemas but an 18 when later released on video.[1]

(None of which is relevant to the YouTube argument, mind.)

[1] https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/the-specialist-q29sbgvjdglvbj...

The BBFC are (or were) mindful that films in the cinema are a one-off sequential viewing, but in the home might be watched in an unhealthy way ie repeatedly looking at a particular very violent scene.

I think their view was young people (especially) could be corrupted by material that fed into criminal ideation - so home media was either cut more or got an adult classification.

Found the guidelines:

Release format: Classification decisions may be stricter on video works than on film. This is because of the increased possibility of under-age viewing as recognised in the Video Recordings Act (see Annexe), as well as the increased possibility of works being replayed or sections viewed out of context. Accordingly, a video work (either packaged or online) may occasionally receive a higher classification than on film, or require new or different cuts. (Video works may also receive a higher classification because they contain additional content.)

[pdf] https://darkroom.bbfc.co.uk/original/a2109fba273d7dffc461f7c...

> but in the home might be watched in an unhealthy way ie repeatedly looking at a particular very [meme]iolent scene

I should never have watched that Dark Knight Rises aircraft shenanigans sequence, so many times. Who else can be blamed?

Bane?!

> I should never have watched that Dark Knight Rises aircraft shenanigans sequence

How many planes have you hijacked since?!?

The meta-problem here is the lack of a counterparty.

YouTube content creators need a union, badly.

No organisation would guarantee they won't change their minds - mistakes are too easy to make and decisions can change. It's also very easy to miss hate language and threats if you don't know the context.

If YouTube charged $1 for every video uploaded, it would really clean up the platform, perhaps just for 'public' videos.

In a legal sense, a "guarantee" simply means to make pre-arranged reparations should the promise be broken. That's all I'm asking for here and I think it could be possible even at YouTube's scale.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com