[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SJNVb0GnPI&bpctr=1503786275[/url] Click the link.
[video=youtube;6SJNVb0GnPI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SJNVb0GnPI&bpctr=1503786275[/video]
I don't know how to feel about youtube taking steps to censor people with the vague claim that it could offend somebody. You can see from this video of the racist scientist it's as bare-bones as it gets, but I hope it doesn't progress to censoring people speaking out like with gamergate or net neutrality.
[url]https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/901143170569740288[/url]
Before, this video was showered in thumbs down and comments opposing the video content. Now you can't voice your complaints because daddy youtube will take care of you. The appeal of youtube was that you could choose what you want to watch freely. When people aren't given platforms to speak and argue, I fear they will act out.
Thoughts?
Youtube needs to stop having these knee jerk reactions to every little event that happens.Same thing happen when ads were played on "offensive" videos and now legitimate content creators can't make any money because half their videos are demonetized.
Enjoy having channels like FilthyFrank and iDubbbz run off of youtube because their too "offensive" for some people. Youtube has been around for 10+ years .How about it stops catering to the minority and start catering to the people that made it popular in the 1st place, the creators. I don't need an echo chamber for content. If I don't like a video I can stop watching it.
I kind of feel bad for youtube tbh.
These roadblocks and problems would be in the path of any video service trying to fulfill the role of YouTube.
About 300 hours of video is uploaded a minute, and somehow, they have to sort them out. While sorting them out, they have to:
1. Make money. They pretty much haven't ever succeeded at this.
2. Grow the userbase in a healthy manner. Making them happy with what they're recommended.
3. Sort out legal problems. This is why youtube pretty much takes your shit down instantly outside of the DMCA and tells you effectively to dare them to sue you.
4. Keep advertisers happy.
5. Maintain PR.
Pretty fucking difficult. Even something simple like "promote things that get the most watch time and ad revenue" have ramifications as an example. As it promotes clickbait, false viral information, and crushes certain communities.
Although one thing they should probably try to do to help creators who inherently have non-advertiser friendly content is making YouTube Red money able to go to demonetized videos, based on the demonetization reason. And even just expanding YouTube red, perhaps even giving a little allowance you can tip to creators you choose to. More YouTubers too should also realize that just sticking ads on their regular content isn't a perfect reliable model. Advertisers are just the way they are and YouTube can't really tell them to "deal with it."
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52618135]I kind of feel bad for youtube tbh.
These roadblocks and problems would be in the path of any video service trying to fulfill the role of YouTube.
About 300 hours of video is uploaded a minute, and somehow, they have to sort them out. While sorting them out, they have to:
1. Make money. They pretty much haven't ever succeeded at this. [/QUOTE]
I agree with your post as a whole - we need to show empathy - but I doubt that youtubers making a living off of it are exploiting youtube. Just like valve with paid mods, Youtube probably get twice as much revenue than the creator itself for the video
[QUOTE=426_Hemi;52618137]I agree with your post as a whole - we need to show empathy - but I doubt that youtubers making a living off of it are exploiting youtube. Just like valve with paid mods, Youtube probably get twice as much revenue than the creator itself for the video[/QUOTE]
I mean keeping the website solvent. YouTube has bled money for years and with how expensive bandwidth is, them taking that cut isn't really a bad thing.
[QUOTE=Darquan90;52616557] When people aren't given platforms to speak and argue, I fear they will act out.[/QUOTE]
Why is it the requirement or even in the interest of a major corporation to waste valuable resources on providing that platform, and recieving at best nothing and at worst bad PR and less income from it?
[QUOTE=Darquan90;52616557]When people aren't given platforms to speak and argue, I fear they will act out.
Thoughts?[/QUOTE]
part of why nazis are coming back is because they've had a platform, which has allowed them to spread and normalize their ideology
shutting them up is not a bad thing
[QUOTE=Darquan90;52616557][url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SJNVb0GnPI&bpctr=1503786275[/url] Click the link.
[video=youtube;6SJNVb0GnPI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SJNVb0GnPI&bpctr=1503786275[/video]
I don't know how to feel about youtube taking steps to censor people with the vague claim that it could offend somebody. You can see from this video of the racist scientist it's as bare-bones as it gets, but I hope it doesn't progress to censoring people speaking out like with gamergate or net neutrality.
[url]https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/901143170569740288[/url]
Before, this video was showered in thumbs down and comments opposing the video content. Now you can't voice your complaints because daddy youtube will take care of you. The appeal of youtube was that you could choose what you want to watch freely. When people aren't given platforms to speak and argue, I fear they will act out.
Thoughts?[/QUOTE]
Holy shit, you can't eve see who uploaded it? I just watched the entire video and in my opinion, youtube are the real racists in this case, jesus.
[QUOTE=DrogenViech;52618192]Holy shit, you can't eve see who uploaded it? I just watched the entire video and in my opinion, youtube are the real racists in this case, jesus.[/QUOTE]
What? It's just below the title.
lol -Snip-
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52618245]Something like that for SNES would be good, probably better quality than the SNES mini.[/QUOTE]
Wrong thread, buck-o.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52618071][B]Those "offensive" videos included porn, hate speech and attacks on the products/brands themselves.[/B] If you're a corporation and you're dumping millions on adds with the reasonable expectation that Google's not going to drag your brand through the mud you don't take pointless risks.
Being on YouTube is a privilage, being monetized is a privilage not an entitlement. It's a business not a meritocracy/charity. Google isn't evil, They're having to sift through 18,000 hours of garbage an hour. Could things be better? Yes, but people are vastly underestimating the scale of the undertaking[/QUOTE]
Explain this then
[media]https://twitter.com/datnofact/status/901547741993725952[/media]
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52618245]Something like that for SNES would be good, probably better quality than the SNES mini.[/QUOTE]
I agree, don't want richard spencer to release his new game on SNES
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/5P89Mt9.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Rockeiro123;52618267]Explain this then
Loading Tweet...
[URL]https://twitter.com/datnofact/status/901547741993725952[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
[quote] Could things be better? Yes, but people are vastly underestimating the scale of the undertaking [/quote]
he already kinda did.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52618265]Wrong thread, buck-o.[/QUOTE]Yeah, haven't done that in a while. Sorry
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52618071]Those "offensive" videos included porn, hate speech and attacks on the products/brands themselves. If you're a corporation and you're dumping millions on adds with the reasonable expectation that Google's not going to drag your brand through the mud you don't take pointless risks.
[/QUOTE]
Your right, no corporation wants their ads placed next to videos about windows9x apps
[media]https://twitter.com/lazygamereviews/status/900896573214863360[/media]
[QUOTE=Thlis;52618364]Your right, no corporation wants their ads placed next to videos about windows9x apps
[media]https://twitter.com/lazygamereviews/status/900896573214863360[/media][/QUOTE]
please don't post such FILTH
my 26 year old son can't handle this
While I think the demonetization thing was fucking stupid, and Google's boner for automation of any form of moderation process has been known to be destructive, I'd like to make a bit of a case for the general concept of limiting access/profitability from rather dubious videos promoting certain ideologies that can only be described by anyone with common sense as dangerous.
YouTube, and by extension Google, is responsible for the contents uploaded on their own website. They're allowing people to host their videos in there but from a moral standpoint, Google agrees to these videos existing on a platform for which they are providing support to ensure its continued existence.
This means that YouTube not only inherently has a say in what can be and cannot be on the site (in the form of rules/guidelines that have existed since the very early, pre-google days), they have in a way a moral obligation to moderate what is going on here, lest they take the risk of being associated with extreme ideologies that have lead to death and suffering in the past - after all, if they're willing to let it exist on their servers let alone indirectly finance its hosting, it means they somewhat agree to the contents of the video.
If (and I'm emphasizing the conditional here) google cared about manual moderation and if YouTube wasn't run so incompetently, there would be only good behind this decision. Why should Google pay and support the promotion and spread of ideologies which we all know are harmful ?
Of course this doesn't apply much in the current practical situation because, as usual, Google cannot be asked to do any fucking thing right about YouTube - I understand the website is a behemoth and the amount of data going through it is absurd, but when it comes to ideologies, concepts that are embraced by rather large groups of people and which are known to be potentially very dangerous if not deadly, you'd assume they'd have the common fucking sense of putting real people behind the decision who actually give a shit.
[QUOTE=Rockeiro123;52618267]Explain this then
[media]https://twitter.com/datnofact/status/901547741993725952[/media][/QUOTE]
like usual, youtube is automating another feature of the site and saying nothing when it fucks up
Why can't YouTube just do something like place a 3-second disclaimer after an advertisement runs before "potentially advertiser unfriendly videos" that states something like
"The following content is an independently produced creation by (channel name) and may not reflect the virtues and values of (advertiser) and Google themselves. This video has been marked by the community for containing content such as (whatever offense they allegedly committed) and is currently under review by YouTube. Advertisements are necessary to keep our services available world-wide, profits from this video go to maintaining our servers and encouraging the YouTube community to provide accessible content for diverse audiences."
Then they can continue running ads on those videos that get randomly marked as offending, while holding onto the ad revenue that is made on the video until the user's submit an appeal proving that their content does not break any of the guidelines.
Sure it's a band-aid fix that just makes the shitty system even shittier, but it gives YouTube some leeway with advertisers. If they keep running ads and save the revenue until the appeal process is complete, content creators can still get paid once their videos are reviewed. And if the video is deemed truly unmarketable, then YouTube still made a profit before having to take all ads down from that video, and can do something feel-good that makes them look better, like publicly donating the profits of offending videos to charities.
the thing with censorship is that it makes people want to see what was censored even more - its entirely counterproductive
youtube has accidentally done the exact opposite of what it set out to do, because people will want to look at censored stuff even more. it's human psychology to want to search for verboten stuff and look at it.
if you want proof, just look at the analytics of the video:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Zid7NBc.png[/img]
by doing this sort of thing, youtube is unintentionally encouraging people to watch a video about racial IQ differences. it's pretty obvious that it isn't a nazi or whatever too (its an old guy having a chat), so the disconnect is going to make some people suspicious
[editline]27th August 2017[/editline]
it's going to give this channel and their videos more exposure and more attention than otherwise was previously the case.
private companies censoring or trying to limit wrongthink is not driving this stuff off the internet and away from prospective audiences, but is ironically encouraging them to come see and engage in wrongthink. moves like this (and other in recent weeks) are only going to encourage this tendency
[QUOTE=BrandoJack;52618675]Why can't YouTube just do something like place a 3-second disclaimer after an advertisement runs before "potentially advertiser unfriendly videos" that states something like
"The following content is an independently produced creation by (channel name) and may not reflect the virtues and values of (advertiser) and Google themselves. This video has been marked by the community for containing content such as (whatever offense they allegedly committed) and is currently under review by YouTube. Advertisements are necessary to keep our services available world-wide, profits from this video go to maintaining our servers and encouraging the YouTube community to provide accessible content for diverse audiences."[/QUOTE]
This shouldn't even be necessary, it should be blatantly obvious to everyone watching Youtube that with the absurd amount of content uploaded to Youtube every day (300 hours of content uploaded [b][i][u]per minute[/u][/i][/b]) there should be no expectation for anyone at Youtube to know about every video that ads play before.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52618702]the thing with censorship is that it makes people want to see what was censored even more - its entirely counterproductive
youtube has accidentally done the exact opposite of what it set out to do, because people will want to look at censored stuff even more. it's human psychology to want to search for verboten stuff and look at it.
if you want proof, just look at the analytics of the video:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Zid7NBc.png[/img]
[/QUOTE]
That doesn't apply to other restricted videos, just this one because it probably got linked in a bunch of places specifically to show this feature off and people are curious
not showing up in searches and having a disclaimer definitely decreases views in the long run
also the way you keep using the term "wrongthink" as if opposing neo-nazi views is some kind of authoritarian shit is gross
Uh Guys American Rennisance is a Neo-Nazi Group.
Clicked the link saw it mentioned it in description and was like nope.
Jared Taylor is a moron and totally tone deaf to history. I'd be open to having a real talk with someone about his views if you wanted dialogue, but theres nothing wrong with youtube pointing out that the guy's opinions are racially divisive, offensive, and breed bigotry.
this thread feels like everyone just finished reading 1984 last week
[QUOTE=Eric95;52618173]part of why nazis are coming back is because they've had a platform, which has allowed them to spread and normalize their ideology
shutting them up is not a bad thing[/QUOTE]
It is a bad thing because who is and is not a Nazi is so completely arbitrary in today's political climate that literally anyone right of socialist can be labelled a Nazi and setting the precedent that having a mean or unpopular opinion is grounds for deplatforming can and will be used against people you don't disagree with in the very near future.
Having the right to speak freely also means people you don't like or agree with will also have that right, taking it away from them takes it away from everybody.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52619712]Luckily this includes companies who can, like people decide whether or not they want another persons ideas to be part of their speech.
this is like the third time in the last two days people have been ignoring parts of my posts for internet funny man points.[/QUOTE]
So they can decide who can and can't use their platform? Like freedom of association? Cool so do you think that cake shop owner should have been allowed to deny service to that gay couple?
[QUOTE=BrandoJack;52618675]Why can't YouTube just do something like place a 3-second disclaimer after an advertisement runs before "potentially advertiser unfriendly videos" that states something like
"The following content is an independently produced creation by (channel name) and may not reflect the virtues and values of (advertiser) and Google themselves. This video has been marked by the community for containing content such as (whatever offense they allegedly committed) and is currently under review by YouTube. Advertisements are necessary to keep our services available world-wide, profits from this video go to maintaining our servers and encouraging the YouTube community to provide accessible content for diverse audiences."
Then they can continue running ads on those videos that get randomly marked as offending, while holding onto the ad revenue that is made on the video until the user's submit an appeal proving that their content does not break any of the guidelines.
Sure it's a band-aid fix that just makes the shitty system even shittier, but it gives YouTube some leeway with advertisers. If they keep running ads and save the revenue until the appeal process is complete, content creators can still get paid once their videos are reviewed. And if the video is deemed truly unmarketable, then YouTube still made a profit before having to take all ads down from that video, and can do something feel-good that makes them look better, like publicly donating the profits of offending videos to charities.[/QUOTE]
They were probably pretty directly told by advertisers what they needed to do to satisfy them.
And I mean, the money from the advertisers is still going to the funding of these channels. They would probably still be very angry
I don't care if youtube has the legal right to do this, it's awful
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
