Bingo. Identity politics is so dangerous because the power of such movements is actually mostly outside the hands of the minorities it claims to represent. Now we all just feel pandered to at best, and painted with a gross and broad brush in general.
I loathe the way Youtube is this big gatekeeper and can make arbitrary decisions on what is/isn't allowed. We need to build alternatives to Youtube which are not subject to arbitrary interference.
I don't even think it's Youtube. It's the advertisers dictating what should and shouldn't be in videos, and I think Youtube is being a bit over-zealous in marking these keywords.
But of course it's """""the algorithms fault""""".
Maybe if this algorithm isn't doing it's job properly and you can't think of (or afford) other methods to administrate your content, you shouldn't be able to host it in the first place.
> you shouldn't be able to host it in the first place.
This is seriously your argument?
What are you even saying, that laws should exist that say that if youtube can't perfectly accurately categorize the 300 hours of video that are uploaded every minute, then youtube should be barred from hosting any videos?
Respectfully, that's loony-tunes. We have a First Amendment for a reason. People should be able to offer services with a contract. Government shouldn't intervene like you describe.
You could almost think of say, reddit, as a crowdsourced index bolted onto the front of YouTube. In other words don’t use YouTube itself for discovery, use specific subreddits for initial discovery.
Edit: I left out the part where you could probably add monetizatuon outside of YouTube
Much of the coverage of YouTube's demonetization algorithm has it framed as censoring or curbing LGBT speech, presumably because LGBT issues are controversial. I think it's much more likely that hateful anti-lgbt videos contain these terms much more frequently, which in turn causes these terms to be more aggressively policed by YouTube's algorithm. Enough videos talking about how the queers are ruining society or other hateful content, and it's pretty much inevitable that these terms are likely to cause demonetization.
Ultimately, there's a trade-off to be made. YouTube could make their algorithm less strict, but then more objectionable content would monetized. YouTube doesn't want to go through another wringer of public criticism for it's advertising. The lawsuit filed by content creators is going nowhere. YouTube has blanket policies like not monetizing any videos with firearms, they are under zero obligation to monetize LGBT content.
Have you ever tried to place an advertisement on YouTube? Advertisers can pick and choose the kinds of videos and kinds of users they place their ads on through the interface.
This is different. This is YouTube saying "Absolutely no one may place an ad here under any circumstances." Advertisers have no say, and cannot place an ad on these videos even if they wanted to.
...unless they directly sponsor the content, paying the producer directly for a mention, etc. Which I increasingly see happen in more and more places. Binging with Babish, Linus Tech Tips, etc.
Eh, that's not entirely true, Yellow means limited ads, grey would be "Absolutely no ads". But limited is generally much less, it's advertisers that opt-in into running on all videos.
>Have you ever tried to place an advertisement on YouTube? Advertisers can pick and choose the kinds of videos and kinds of users they place their ads on through the interface.
This didn't stop advertisers from pulling their ads during the adpocalypse. They pulled them because "YouTube has to do something!"
I think you misunderstood to point I'm making. It's very hard to train an algorithm tell whether a video is referencing LGBT content in a negative or positive light. The consequences of monetizing the former is much larger than not monetizing the latter.
How advertisers select topics to advertise is not related to what I am writing about at all.
But if the algorithm can't tell the difference between positive and negative content on a subject is it any use at all? It basically invites bad actors to trick it into demonetising their targets. You can also see this in how Twitter reports get weaponised.
The algorithm can't tell because these experiments are run with literally empty videos/audios on a blank channel... You're feeding the algorithm an abnormal input, with no data points to detect anything.
Normally, it would look at the video, audio and channel status and so on. In this case, it's not getting any of that. The model wasn't built to run on edge cases like this and it isn't expected to be able to classify such an outlier input.
The best solution was the old solution. Don't demonetize videos and do not give in into the demands of advertisers to select content. If that had happened, the "objectionable" content wouldn't be as popular as it is now.
This is bound to happen to any platform financed by advertisers. Controversies are like fires to them. If it's not under their control, it's dangerous and has to be put out.
>If it's not under their control, it's dangerous and has to be put out.
I think the last thing advertisers want is more control, because that means they are responsible. Advertisers just don't want bad publicity, so when the news media comes knocking because of some controversy, the advertiser can say: "We did everything we could! (Please talk about us in a good way.)"
There's another side to this though. LGBTQ content is inherently about sexuality, how is youtube supposed to deteremine when you're talking about sexuality for the sake of social progress vs. talking about sexuality for the sake of, well, sex?
Simply mentioning that someone is lesbian in a video does not make the content "inherently about sexuality."
The idea that everything related to LGBTQ issues is inherently sexual in nature is one of the most toxic ones to people with those identities. It maintains the idea that their very existence taboo, something you're not allowed to talk about in public, and certainly not around children! When talking about LBGTQ identities around children, normalizing their existence, is one of the most powerful things to help LGBTQ children understand and accept their identities, and help straight, cisgender children recognize that LGBTQ children are fine, normal, and not something to be feared or reviled.
I’m struggling to understand what an LGBTQ identity is if it isn’t related to sexuality. The definition of a lesbian is a woman who has sexual preferences for women. If a woman doesn’t have sexual preferences for other women, but still likes them, then we just call them “friends”, no? She isn’t a lesbian just because she has female friends.
And now we get into our semantic debate; is LGBTQ content any content that is generated by a member of that group? So if a gay man talks about skateboarding, is it LGBTQ content? Or is it only LGBTQ content when the topic is literally about lesbians, gays, bis, and transsexuals?
If you talk about sexuality, you’re talking about sexuality, so you’re going to get hit with these censors. If you talk about skateboarding, you aren’t talking about sexuality, so you won’t get censored.
You're assuming, first, that attraction is exclusively defined in sexual terms, which is untrue. You're further assuming that identity is exclusively defined by sexuality. Also not true.
There are many aspects of LGBTQ identity and culture which are not related to sex, in the same way that there are many aspects of heterosexual identity and culture unrelated to sex. One may use the keywords mentioned in the article outside of the context of a discussion of sex.
Here are some examples of LGBTQ Youtube content which, you will note, should you watch, are not entirely about sex or sexuality, despite clearly being "LGBTQ content."
> You're assuming, first, that attraction is exclusively defined in sexual terms, which is untrue.
Agreed. If you are attracted to someone and you don't want to have sex with them, then it's not sexual attraction. I am attracted to my business partner, for example, because he is very confident and has a warm personality. That's why I call him my friend and business partner. But this doesn't make me Gay, I don't want to have sex with him.
> You're further assuming that identity is exclusively defined by sexuality. Also not true.
Agreed. There are many facets to a person's identity. Sexual identity is just one of them. In a conversation about LGBTQ identity, it's fair to assume we're talking about sexual identity, it's right in the name - lesbian gay bi trans queer. Those are words that describe who you have sexual relationships with, therefore conversations about LGBTQ identity are about sexual identity. If you want to have a discussion about geographic or other parts of a person's identity, then we can do that, but nothing about our conversation is about those parts of a person's identity.
Edit: I see where our misunderstanding is. You think LGBTQ is a banner under which an entire identity is defined, but I think LGBTQ is just one part of a person's larger identity. I think there are many LGBTQ people who do not want their identity to be pinned to their sexual preference, many would say "I'm just a guy who likes men, don't paint me with that whole brush".
Everything makes a lot more sense if you don't look at advertiser decisions as moral ones, but rather as economic ones.
LGBT is laden with a number of controversial and polarizing issues. This means something that is advertising on a video where this is a meaningful focus, whether positive or negative, may result in controversy. And advertisers can't win in controversy. If they withdraw advertising, one group is pissed. If they don't withdraw advertising, another group is pissed. So they see it in their best interest to avoid controversy altogether simply as a means of maximizing their economic return.
And so you get the end result - advertisers are drawn to bland and inoffensive content. I'd hypothesize this also goes some way towards explaining the deterioration of music which went from invariable social commentary tied to the issues of the day to a million different versions of 'oh baby i love you' as the top tracks. Dylan to Bieber in 40 years. What progress...
To those who support the demonetization of conservative content: it's truly a slippery slope. Wait until minecraft is declared a white supremacist game, and let's watch Youtube torch themselves even harder.
LGBTQ content being demonetized has been going on for ages, long before the more recent controversy around conservative content. This was a major concern going back to 2011. Youtube's justification at the time was that content that made references to LGBTQ matters may not be appropriate for all audiences.
Like the censorship of ISIS content, LGBTQ content censorship was celebrated by the same people now lamenting "conservative" demonetization.
Since the conservative movement as a whole has been generally moving to deny LGBTQ people the right to marry (see: attempts to overturn Obergefell in conservative states), the right to serve in the military (see: transgender military ban) and the right to not be discriminated against (see: masterpiece cakeshop).
I'm not going to deny that there are LGBT conservatives. But the fact is that conservative politicians as a whole demonize LGBTQ people and have attempted multiple times to censor them [1] or bar them from aid.
I would argue "as a whole" describes the situation prudently. After all, the parent is pointing specifically at politicians even - not just all people. "In general", "overall", "on average", and "prominently" also all work I think.
Just the aggregate of the conservative population. It would be similar to saying that black people suffer discrimination in the US, to which I suppose you'd incredulously reply, "All of them? All black people? But I have a black friend who has never felt prejudged on matters of race." I wonder of the conversational instincts of such a person.
Recall George Bush Jr's presidential candidacy when banning gay marriage in the nation's Constitutional was a get-out-to-vote issue. Or California's 8. Why are these issues energizing? What about care for the poor and focus on education? Are these not red-hot winning issues?
You might also refer to the GOP platform of various states, or the GOP national platform. Here's some verbatim text from the Texas GOP platform, the 2nd-largest state in the nation.
> Homosexual Behavior: We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization. We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin. We urge the Texas Legislature to pass religious liberty protections for individuals, businesses, and government officials who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. We oppose the granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
> Definition of Marriage: We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal, and moral commitment only between one natural man and one natural woman.
> Overturn Unconstitutional Ruling: We believe this decision, overturning the Texas law prohibiting same-sex marriage in Texas, has no basis in the Constitution and should be reversed, returning jurisdiction over the definition of marriage to the states. The Governor and other elected officials of the State of Texas should assert our Tenth Amendment right and reject the Supreme Court ruling.
I would also argue that discussing American conservatism without a rich narrative on Christianity is obtusely blind.
> Religious Freedom: As America is “one nation under God,” founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we affirm the constitutional right of all individuals to worship as they choose.
If conservatives didn't care about gay marriage, then what political force would be left to oppose its legitimacy?
A lot of people are angry that Notch (the guy who made the game) isn't just another SV "progressive" and so use him as a scapegoat for everything that's "wrong" with gamers.
What is happening, is notch tweeting reactionary opinion pieces on twitter and people are irritated by it. No one thinks he represents all gamers or their perceived 'wrongness', and no one expects him to fit into some imaginary SV mould.
I don't see this at all. He's rarely pointed at as some kind of proxy for gamers, and the responses to his statements have arguably been reasonable and direct. I don't know why you would think anybody expects random Swedes to be "just another SV 'progressive'", but it sounds like you're using that phrase to stand in as an insult.
I think this is a reference to PewDiePie recently focusing a lot of his content on Minecraft and how the media has gone after him on a number of occations. The concern would be in trying to attack PewDiePie, the media would attack what he is doing and label that as bad (similar to how the OK hand gesture was labeled as a white supremacist sign by the ADL). This is just my assumption though.
>the OK hand gesture was labeled as a white supremacist sign by the ADL
I'm not 100% sure you're criticising that, so if you're not, please take this comment as directed at the many other times I have seen it criticized on HN and elsewhere:
It always surprises me to see fairly smart people throw this out there like it's obviously silly. Communication is based simply on actual usage of language and symbols. If a bunch of people want to associate a symbol (especially one that's still ubiquitously known but has somewhat fallen out of popular real-world usage) with something very controversial and offensive, then they can realistically do that by simply using the symbol that way, even if they're only doing it as a hilarious joke. Then it just means that sometimes (depending on context), until they stop using it that way. If people are, in practice, using a symbol to mean a certain thing, then it means that thing (with the likelihood of meaning being a function of context). I don't have to think about it or philosophize about it when I see it - it comes naturally based on context, because that's how language works. If I've seen 10 usages of <Mercury-symbol> to mean "Mercury" in the past 5 years, and 75 usages of it to mean "kill all the elderly" in the past year, then when I see somebody who seems antagonistic write <Mercury-symbol> with no planetary context in sight, I can reasonably assume he probably means the latter, and I would probably be correct. As another example, the "V" sign means different things in different places - but if I see it in the US, I don't fret at the idea that I might misinterpret it. The fact is, in practice, it's used here to mean "peace", therefore it means "peace" at that moment. Sort of like how money works. You can't just say "no" and make the social agreement go away.
*edit: I didn't know HN filtered some seemingly innocuous characters - I've replaced my usage of the Mercury symbol with <Mercury-symbol>.
Not trying to derail, but I honestly just learned about the existence of Mercury-symbol from this comment and I'm pretty sure I've never seen it used anywhere before in my life. I've also never heard of "kill all the elderly" message in general.
Can you provide some context examples? Genuinely curious.
I tried to write my comment such that I wasn't making a judgement call on it, just listing it as a recent event that is most likely on the minds of people thinking about this topic.
> It always surprises me to see fairly smart people throw this out there like it's obviously silly.
I don't think it's silly, but I do feel the media's coverage of it was irresponsible / clickbaity. The ADL website itself mentions that most uses are "entirely innocuous and harmless" but CNN's headline was "'OK' is now a hate symbol", which stigmatizes the gesture and feels like cultural vandalism. I understand your point about language usage, but far more people use the gesture in an innocuous way. It's not surpising to me that people would be upset when told it's a hate symobol (when it's not in most cases - documenting that it is in some cases is fine, but generalizing it as a hate symbol is what most people disagree with).
Yeah, it would be crazy to call minecraft white supremacist. Not at all like OK-signs and frog memes. I knew something was fishy about those things from day one.
Demonetizing videos that make homophobic attacks on public figures (the "conservative" content in question) is not "the other side of the coin" to being positive about LGBTQ issues.
There's no denying of business, there's just illiberal progressives seeking to force individuals speech and expression to be only what they deem socially acecptable. If some Christian baker doesn't wish to create a bespoke cake, that's within his right.
Your desire to control others expression is far more toxic than someone's "right" to a bespoke desert.
For you to be consistent, you have to also defend the baker's right to refuse business to a black couple who requests a "bespoke cake". Do you agree with that?
> For you to be consistent, you have to also defend the baker's right to refuse business to a black couple who requests a "bespoke cake".
Entirely depends on the content of the cake, if a black couple comes along and asks for a cake with, say, Satan licking a giant black dick[0] on it the baker might reasonably demur.
It isn't about refusing a couple based on their immutable attributes, it is about the content of the cake they requested.
You don't have a right to force someone to create something they do not wish to create.
Let's be clear, that was not the request. The baker refused to bake the cake because it was for a gay wedding, and such a cake would "promote gay marriage".
There are still many people out there who do not "believe" in interracial marriage. Do you support a baker refusing to make a cake for an interracial couple? Do they have the right to refuse business solely based on the race of their customers?
Yes, it was the request. They wanted a custom cake celebrating a gay wedding, which was precluded by the baker's sincere religious belief.
If you read TFA I linked to, you would have read this as well as all the other insane requests refused, and that the baker was willing to sell otherwise made cakes.
This is a well litigated, well reported case and you have twice now insisted material elements of the case did not happen.
This is not about refusing someone based on their immutable attributes, but their requested content. Stop asking rhetorical questions regarding racism.
It is as relates to compelling someone to create custom content on your behalf, to express your views.
I can't use a religious belief to refuse a rote service, but I can to refuse bespoke work that expresses your views.
This case was never about refusing service to LGBT couples, it was about refusing bespoke work. To paint it as anything else, and in defense of your argument that "Conservatives are anti-LGBT" because of this case is wrong and nothing short of propaganda.
By your logic, business should be able to deny business involving bespoke imagery of interracial couples based on religious views. For instance, a cake depicting the couple.
"Bespoke work" that is colored by the nature of the customer requesting the work. Does the baker do wedding cakes? Yes. Now what if the customer requested a wedding cake, but the wedding is a gay wedding? Suddenly no.
Your argument that the baker was merely refusing to serve the customer because of the "content" does not hold up.
Why do you feel that the person cited in the article below does not have the right to have their deeply held religious freedoms protected, while the rights of the cake baker involving the gay couple does?
See the final sentence of the comment to which you have replied:
> You don't have a right to force someone to create something they do not wish to create.
I responded to a comment painting this case as an example of conservatives refusing business to LGBT individuals, which it isn't. It is a case of refusing to be compelled to create content that expresses your views.
Of note, the baker in the referenced case offered to sell existing products. They simply refused the bespoke cake.
Yours is an example of discrimination of a rote service based not on content, but of immutable attribute. These are unrelated situations.
Why is "creating a cake to be used by gay people" different from "hosting an event for gay people" in your mind? Why shouldn't you be able to skip out on doing either if you don't believe that they're morally correct?
If the cake is not inherently gay (ie, literally stating "I am a gay wedding cake" or some such similar wording) how is the creation itself any different because of the consumer? If 2 men ask for a pink cake with chocolate frosting and a straight couple ask for a pink cake with chocolate frosting, there's no inherent difference in the product, and thus in the production.
If it's "I will need to interact with and consult with gay people endeavoring to undertake what I believe is an amoral act (marriage)" then how is it different from hosting the wedding?
This whole area is arbitrary and nonsensical lines. We'll be better off when the same protective rights extended to visible minorities are extend to invisible minorities. You claim they're unrelated, I disagree. For now, the law agrees with you and I can concede that.
It's not just "creating a cake to be used by gay people", it's more of a "creating a bespoke piece of art communicating a certain message with your name signed on it".
Again, seems like the baker was totally okay to sell the couple any of the pre-baked cakes, which would qualify as "creating a cake to be used by gay people".
>>If 2 men ask for a pink cake with chocolate frosting and a straight couple ask for a pink cake with chocolate frosting, there's no inherent difference in the product, and thus in the production.
The only difference is who the consumer is. Also, the hollow difference between "I created this just for you" vs. "I created this, and you will be using it" of your pre-baked vs bespoke cake example seems extremely weak to me. Legally, this doesn't matter, but hey legally at one point black people couldn't vote because "reasons".
The point I'm getting at: Why was OP comfortable with half measures? Why is "black" a protected class, even against "deeply held religious beliefs" but "gay" isn't? Why is "use a product you created just for me" different from "use a product you created"? This difference feel arbitrary to me, and grounded more in homophobia than any sort of sound logic.
Put bluntly: If you think gay people shouldn't be allowed to request cakes, I don't see how you can logically hold the belief that black people should be allowed to request cakes.
The baker's business exists at the pleasure of the government that ratified its charter and as such is subject to rules around how they can run it. Some of those rules include how the business can filter potential customers. Sexual orientation is recognized as a protected class. Part of the baker's business is creating and selling wedding cakes. It is reasonable then to require that the baker, in their capacity of selling wedding cakes, to do so indiscriminately with respect to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any other protected class _regardless_ of their religious beliefs. The supreme court opinion on this case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...) did not rule on the merits so it is an open question as to the legal standing of that.
Yes, and the baker was willing to sell them a cake. He was not willing to create a bespoke cake. This isn't about refusing service, but refusing compelled speech.
As I've expressed over and over, this isn't about refusing to conduct business.
While i think it is morally reprehensible to deny business to someone because of their sexuality, forcing someone to work for any reason is essentially just as bad. It's no different than forcing an employee to work overtime when no legal contract is in place.
If it were a doctor it would be different, but it's a non-essential baked item.
They don't want to work. Do not make them work. Let their business die and find another bakery.
Perhaps, but if the criteria for "homophobic attacks" expands to include views that the majority of conservatives hold, then banning "homophobic attacks" just becomes a rebranded way of banning conservatives.
No, that's not the right thing to do. You'd be suppressing a great amount of people, whose opinions have to be reckoned with. Just because you think they hold the "wrong" opinion doesn't mean they actually do. It just differs from yours and you have to accept that (and can obviously try to convince them of your position). They have to live with your opinion as well, so that's just fair.
I support Youtube demonetizing whatever content they want as long as they are transparent about it
But that's because I believe in private property and freedom of association as well as personal responsibility for one's actions while it seems "conservatives" in 2019 do not from the public stances they have adopted in their political efforts.
lol? no one cares if you think trickle-down economics works. but people would prefer that youtubers who use slurs should not be rewarded by monetization.
I think there are extremely few people (outside of specialist political groups whose horrible job is "winning") whose goal is to demonetize politically "conservative" content, even in their own minds. The very word implies inoffensive. I think there is simply a trend of attacking the extremist trends that identify themselves as conservative, and then there is an intermediary ring of conservatives somewhere in the middle who, in a misguided tactic to defend their political identity, will throw the idea of being conservative in front of the bullets and claim the idea of being conservative is under attack.
I'm not particularly interested in demonetizing conservative content.
I am, however, willing to support a movement that results in conservative content being demonetized if American conservatism continues to pander to and fall back on its racist and reactionary cores. It isn't clear to me why social disapprobation and pressure on the whole to excise reactionaries is inappropriate in this context.
This is counterfactual, and I'm not interested in debating facts.
> I consider the moral-fascism of modern illiberal progressive rhetoric to be rather abhorrent.
I'm sorry, but this is word salad. You don't know any of my concrete political positions.
> Are you fine with being socially outcast?
I am extremely comfortable with reactionaries being socially outcast. I belong to a few different groups that are traditionally (and violently) targeted when reactionary movements gain social and political power. Minimizing the ability of reactionaries to undermine systems of government and public discourse directly serves my end of continuing to exist in a liberal democracy. I'd quote Popper, but that's a little bit too cliche at this point.
Would you please stop using HN primarily for ideological battle? It's against the site guidelines, we ban accounts that do that (regardless of which ideology they're battling/for), and it seems you've been doing a lot of it.
Why don't they just flip this on the head and let advertisers bid on videos that reach 100k views? Then there are no decisions being made by youtube at all. And it creates jobs at the agency to monitor and get their ads in front of people. Pre-bidding could happen on any content estimated to reach 100k..
Downvoters please explain - we have tons of threads about homeless and joblessness and how tech is concerned with eliminating jobs instead of creating them.
Because advertisers don't actually want responsibility. They want to show their ads to as many people as effectively as possible. Advertisers go along with controversies to not get demonized by the media and activists for "supporting the evil people" and to score bonus points by doing what the media wants (so that the media talks about them).
If you give this responsibility directly to advertisers then the advertisers are responsible for every single misplaced ad. They have no scapegoat if somebody comes knocking and asks why they support Mr Very Evil by giving them money.
The worst thing Youtube ever did in this respect was to give in to the original advertisers dropping out of their platform. As far as I know, they introduced a bunch of changes that crippled the income of their creators and their speech, without any monetary return for doing so.
In turn, creators have to be careful about what they say and viewers are slightly less interested in tamed content.
With creators further restricted and not being paid as much, they reached out for third party funding sources (bypassing Yotube) and started to seriously consider other platforms as alternatives.
Worse still, once one media company had seen success at trying to "cancel" Youtube, others strive to capitalize on the same opportunity.
Now Youtube is stuck trying to implement forever more complicated filtering models, employing larger and larger numbers of humans for manual verification and are trying to find an impossible balance of responsibility.
Dealing with news media is pretty much the same as dealing with bullies - simply ignore them and they'll go away. The advertisers will eventually come back when the heat is off and they see their competitors doing really well.
> As far as I know, they introduced a bunch of changes that crippled the income of their creators and their speech, without any monetary return for doing so.
Are you in a position to know about that, though? I mean, would you expect to be made aware of whether these changes were financially efficient to YouTube? Or are you just presuming they are not?
YouTube directly lost money by introducing these changes, because content that is demonetized doesn't make YouTube any money either. However, the bigger picture is that if YouTube in its entirety becomes advertiser unfriendly, then much more money is lost by them.
So the question whether YouTube lost money with these demonetization rules is not so easy to answer.
> Are you in a position to know about that, though?
I did proceed my statement with "As far as I know", meaning I'm willing to be educated differently.
> I mean, would you expect to be made aware of whether these
> changes were financially efficient to YouTube? Or are you
> just presuming they are not?
Again, I'm willing to be told differently, but the big advertisers that I was aware of were Disney, Coke and Car Manufacturers, none of which ever seemed to return, despite Youtube bending the knee in trying to get them to return.
As another comment says, Youtube loses money delivering content without adverts. As the number of demonetized videos increases, so do the losses from those videos.
My point is essentially that they although they made these changes, it doesn't appear to have benefited them. The number of "controversies" increases regardless of what they do, but now all that happens is that they hurt the communities they want to protect (such as LGBT) and annoy others.
I guess my point is that you're not going to be told differently, because that information is proprietary. It is not YouTube's habit to go around letting all the curious people know the details of its financials or the inner workings of its decision-making apparatus. You would not expect to be told all the factors that weigh into the feature's development, nor how it's turning out. So the fact that nobody has informed you or publicly announced that demonetization's goals are being achieved is the expected outcome, whether or it is performing as desired.
The only solid evidence you or I have access to is that they are still doing it. That at least strongly suggests that it has some significant benefits from YouTube's perspective, considering all the downsides you so rightly point out.
First off, the headline is misleading, the experiment in question didn't look at the words "said", but rather words in the title.
Secondly, the experiment itself was contrived: They uploaded thousands of videos (with no video or audio) to a single channel, and looked at the monetization status. The issue is:
1. Youtube's system is probably not stateless. It most likely looks at the uploaders history and other channel data points.
2. An upload with no video or audio content is an abnormal data point. It's an outlier and doesn't represent real case scenario.
Therefore, you can't really extrapolate the results from this experiment and reach any sort of conclusion.
> 1. Youtube's system is probably not stateless. It most likely looks at the uploaders history and other channel data points.
We dont know how Youtube´s system operates which is actually part of the problem as the lack of transparency makes it hard for anyone to make any reasonable assessment.
> 2. An upload with no video or audio content is an abnormal data point. It's an outlier and doesn't represent real case scenario.
Not really as titles (combined with other meta-data) have for a long time impacted the state of monetization, suppression and view count for any given video regardless of its content.
Sure, which is why this isn't "conclusive proof Youtube is blocking LGBTQ content". As I stated above, it's a contrived experiments and the results most likely can't be extrapolated, and you can't reach any definitive conclusions from it.
> Not really as titles (combined with other meta-data) have for a long time impacted the state of monetization
I'm not saying they don't play a role, most likely all of these data points are fed into the model. What I'm saying is that Youtube is primarily a video/audio site, so running an experiment with no audio/video isn't testing the model the way it runs in practice.
The model wasn't made to classify only titles, this is an abnormal input and therefore the output can't be used to reach any conclusions.
Your criticism of the testing methodology is fair and valid. However, I see this as a test controlling for a single variable to the best of the ability of whoever made it. I am not sure what a better testing methodology would look like. Which is why I see this at least as an indication of what is systematically going on.
Just assumign this were real (its not). I kind of love how leftists got a taste of their own medicine. They push for platforming for everything and everyone who does dare not to agree with their ideology and they deep everything that they find offensive (and that is a lot) to be "hatespeech" and pressure Google and others to censor it. On the Stephen Crowder cases YouTube admitted he did NOT violate their terms and they demonized his entire channel for some jokes about a guy who calls himself the same things the jokes were about.
I wonder if folks recognize that all of this is internet only drama. I live in a diverse city of 5 million people, and I rarely to never come across someone who is so charged up over identity or race or political affiliations. Those .00001% of the time that I do, its usually related to something from the internet spilling into real life. I can drive 10 minutes from downtown and be in the heart of multiple ethnic groups, affiliations, and cultures, and in fact I often do to go eat or hang out with friends. When I interact with people in these areas I don't see the same behaviors that I see online. It really just makes me want to spend less time online which is a shame. As I entered college in the early 90s and the internet was coming to the masses it seemed a much more hopeful place.
Whenever something seems wrong with social media, ask yourself "what is the real product here?" and check if what your seeing aligns with that.
I didn't want to spend a half hour watching those goofballs in the video explain that their spreadsheets really mean something, so I took my own dumb stab at it.
Pre: Advertising partners hand YouTube money and say "We would like to target the following list of keywords..."
Event: a new video title appears!
1. Parse title for keywords
2. If there's a match from keywords to advertisers, mark as monetized, and serve up the ads.
3. Else, there is no one left to monetize this video. Mark as demonitized.
No idea if it works this way. But even this naive algorithm could have a similar effect to the one being seen. So on one hand, it seems like a Won't Fix, because this is the product, and it's functioning as designed. On the other hand, this might be a nasty enough side effect that they should consider not doing it this way.
This is like a soft preview of the AI Alignment Problem.
That isn't how it works. Monetized vs. demonitized determines whether or not it is even offered to any advertisers. A monetized video may still not have any ads if it manages to match anything that any advertisers are looking for, and a demonitized video will not have ads even if an advertiser would like to buy an ad there.
It's nice to be focused on programming screencasts
In one sense, the YT algorithm punishes me for not maximizing watch time, but I'll never fall afoul of this kind of concern and best of all I don't monetize through advertisers.
I make tutorials and if people like them so much they want more, they pay me on a subscription basis. No advertisers needed!
119 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 183 ms ] threadBut of course it's """""the algorithms fault""""".
Maybe if this algorithm isn't doing it's job properly and you can't think of (or afford) other methods to administrate your content, you shouldn't be able to host it in the first place.
This is seriously your argument?
What are you even saying, that laws should exist that say that if youtube can't perfectly accurately categorize the 300 hours of video that are uploaded every minute, then youtube should be barred from hosting any videos?
Edit: I left out the part where you could probably add monetizatuon outside of YouTube
What can we do to mitigate these gatekeepers?
Ultimately, there's a trade-off to be made. YouTube could make their algorithm less strict, but then more objectionable content would monetized. YouTube doesn't want to go through another wringer of public criticism for it's advertising. The lawsuit filed by content creators is going nowhere. YouTube has blanket policies like not monetizing any videos with firearms, they are under zero obligation to monetize LGBT content.
This is different. This is YouTube saying "Absolutely no one may place an ad here under any circumstances." Advertisers have no say, and cannot place an ad on these videos even if they wanted to.
This didn't stop advertisers from pulling their ads during the adpocalypse. They pulled them because "YouTube has to do something!"
How advertisers select topics to advertise is not related to what I am writing about at all.
Normally, it would look at the video, audio and channel status and so on. In this case, it's not getting any of that. The model wasn't built to run on edge cases like this and it isn't expected to be able to classify such an outlier input.
I think the last thing advertisers want is more control, because that means they are responsible. Advertisers just don't want bad publicity, so when the news media comes knocking because of some controversy, the advertiser can say: "We did everything we could! (Please talk about us in a good way.)"
No, it's not.
It's about people.
Simply mentioning that someone is lesbian in a video does not make the content "inherently about sexuality."
The idea that everything related to LGBTQ issues is inherently sexual in nature is one of the most toxic ones to people with those identities. It maintains the idea that their very existence taboo, something you're not allowed to talk about in public, and certainly not around children! When talking about LBGTQ identities around children, normalizing their existence, is one of the most powerful things to help LGBTQ children understand and accept their identities, and help straight, cisgender children recognize that LGBTQ children are fine, normal, and not something to be feared or reviled.
And now we get into our semantic debate; is LGBTQ content any content that is generated by a member of that group? So if a gay man talks about skateboarding, is it LGBTQ content? Or is it only LGBTQ content when the topic is literally about lesbians, gays, bis, and transsexuals?
If you talk about sexuality, you’re talking about sexuality, so you’re going to get hit with these censors. If you talk about skateboarding, you aren’t talking about sexuality, so you won’t get censored.
There are many aspects of LGBTQ identity and culture which are not related to sex, in the same way that there are many aspects of heterosexual identity and culture unrelated to sex. One may use the keywords mentioned in the article outside of the context of a discussion of sex.
Here are some examples of LGBTQ Youtube content which, you will note, should you watch, are not entirely about sex or sexuality, despite clearly being "LGBTQ content."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTwm4IIBGPI&list=PLmWFOeT2jE...
https://www.youtube.com/user/rantasmo/videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/muppetmadness/videos
Agreed. If you are attracted to someone and you don't want to have sex with them, then it's not sexual attraction. I am attracted to my business partner, for example, because he is very confident and has a warm personality. That's why I call him my friend and business partner. But this doesn't make me Gay, I don't want to have sex with him.
> You're further assuming that identity is exclusively defined by sexuality. Also not true.
Agreed. There are many facets to a person's identity. Sexual identity is just one of them. In a conversation about LGBTQ identity, it's fair to assume we're talking about sexual identity, it's right in the name - lesbian gay bi trans queer. Those are words that describe who you have sexual relationships with, therefore conversations about LGBTQ identity are about sexual identity. If you want to have a discussion about geographic or other parts of a person's identity, then we can do that, but nothing about our conversation is about those parts of a person's identity.
Edit: I see where our misunderstanding is. You think LGBTQ is a banner under which an entire identity is defined, but I think LGBTQ is just one part of a person's larger identity. I think there are many LGBTQ people who do not want their identity to be pinned to their sexual preference, many would say "I'm just a guy who likes men, don't paint me with that whole brush".
LGBT is laden with a number of controversial and polarizing issues. This means something that is advertising on a video where this is a meaningful focus, whether positive or negative, may result in controversy. And advertisers can't win in controversy. If they withdraw advertising, one group is pissed. If they don't withdraw advertising, another group is pissed. So they see it in their best interest to avoid controversy altogether simply as a means of maximizing their economic return.
And so you get the end result - advertisers are drawn to bland and inoffensive content. I'd hypothesize this also goes some way towards explaining the deterioration of music which went from invariable social commentary tied to the issues of the day to a million different versions of 'oh baby i love you' as the top tracks. Dylan to Bieber in 40 years. What progress...
I can see the criticisms now:
"These racists are using Mein Kraft to achieve power through the joy of gaming!"
Like the censorship of ISIS content, LGBTQ content censorship was celebrated by the same people now lamenting "conservative" demonetization.
The "same people?" All of them? Since when does "Conservative" equal "anti-LGBT?" You do know there exists LGBT conservatives, yes?
I'm not going to deny that there are LGBT conservatives. But the fact is that conservative politicians as a whole demonize LGBTQ people and have attempted multiple times to censor them [1] or bar them from aid.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19976398
"As a whole" they do not. There exists many who do, to paint it part and parcel of conservatism is incorrect.
One could just as well claim it's not their conservatism, but religious beliefs.
Recall George Bush Jr's presidential candidacy when banning gay marriage in the nation's Constitutional was a get-out-to-vote issue. Or California's 8. Why are these issues energizing? What about care for the poor and focus on education? Are these not red-hot winning issues?
You might also refer to the GOP platform of various states, or the GOP national platform. Here's some verbatim text from the Texas GOP platform, the 2nd-largest state in the nation.
> Homosexual Behavior: We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization. We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin. We urge the Texas Legislature to pass religious liberty protections for individuals, businesses, and government officials who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. We oppose the granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
> Definition of Marriage: We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal, and moral commitment only between one natural man and one natural woman.
> Overturn Unconstitutional Ruling: We believe this decision, overturning the Texas law prohibiting same-sex marriage in Texas, has no basis in the Constitution and should be reversed, returning jurisdiction over the definition of marriage to the states. The Governor and other elected officials of the State of Texas should assert our Tenth Amendment right and reject the Supreme Court ruling.
I would also argue that discussing American conservatism without a rich narrative on Christianity is obtusely blind.
> Religious Freedom: As America is “one nation under God,” founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we affirm the constitutional right of all individuals to worship as they choose.
If conservatives didn't care about gay marriage, then what political force would be left to oppose its legitimacy?
what?
What is happening, is notch tweeting reactionary opinion pieces on twitter and people are irritated by it. No one thinks he represents all gamers or their perceived 'wrongness', and no one expects him to fit into some imaginary SV mould.
I'm not 100% sure you're criticising that, so if you're not, please take this comment as directed at the many other times I have seen it criticized on HN and elsewhere:
It always surprises me to see fairly smart people throw this out there like it's obviously silly. Communication is based simply on actual usage of language and symbols. If a bunch of people want to associate a symbol (especially one that's still ubiquitously known but has somewhat fallen out of popular real-world usage) with something very controversial and offensive, then they can realistically do that by simply using the symbol that way, even if they're only doing it as a hilarious joke. Then it just means that sometimes (depending on context), until they stop using it that way. If people are, in practice, using a symbol to mean a certain thing, then it means that thing (with the likelihood of meaning being a function of context). I don't have to think about it or philosophize about it when I see it - it comes naturally based on context, because that's how language works. If I've seen 10 usages of <Mercury-symbol> to mean "Mercury" in the past 5 years, and 75 usages of it to mean "kill all the elderly" in the past year, then when I see somebody who seems antagonistic write <Mercury-symbol> with no planetary context in sight, I can reasonably assume he probably means the latter, and I would probably be correct. As another example, the "V" sign means different things in different places - but if I see it in the US, I don't fret at the idea that I might misinterpret it. The fact is, in practice, it's used here to mean "peace", therefore it means "peace" at that moment. Sort of like how money works. You can't just say "no" and make the social agreement go away.
*edit: I didn't know HN filtered some seemingly innocuous characters - I've replaced my usage of the Mercury symbol with <Mercury-symbol>.
Can you provide some context examples? Genuinely curious.
> It always surprises me to see fairly smart people throw this out there like it's obviously silly.
I don't think it's silly, but I do feel the media's coverage of it was irresponsible / clickbaity. The ADL website itself mentions that most uses are "entirely innocuous and harmless" but CNN's headline was "'OK' is now a hate symbol", which stigmatizes the gesture and feels like cultural vandalism. I understand your point about language usage, but far more people use the gesture in an innocuous way. It's not surpising to me that people would be upset when told it's a hate symobol (when it's not in most cases - documenting that it is in some cases is fine, but generalizing it as a hate symbol is what most people disagree with).
Demonetizing videos that make homophobic attacks on public figures (the "conservative" content in question) is not "the other side of the coin" to being positive about LGBTQ issues.
Marriage equality on the left vs denying business to gay couples on the right.
There's no denying of business, there's just illiberal progressives seeking to force individuals speech and expression to be only what they deem socially acecptable. If some Christian baker doesn't wish to create a bespoke cake, that's within his right.
Your desire to control others expression is far more toxic than someone's "right" to a bespoke desert.
Entirely depends on the content of the cake, if a black couple comes along and asks for a cake with, say, Satan licking a giant black dick[0] on it the baker might reasonably demur.
It isn't about refusing a couple based on their immutable attributes, it is about the content of the cake they requested.
You don't have a right to force someone to create something they do not wish to create.
[0] - https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-baker-protagonist-satan-di...
There are still many people out there who do not "believe" in interracial marriage. Do you support a baker refusing to make a cake for an interracial couple? Do they have the right to refuse business solely based on the race of their customers?
Yes, it was the request. They wanted a custom cake celebrating a gay wedding, which was precluded by the baker's sincere religious belief.
If you read TFA I linked to, you would have read this as well as all the other insane requests refused, and that the baker was willing to sell otherwise made cakes.
This is a well litigated, well reported case and you have twice now insisted material elements of the case did not happen.
This is not about refusing someone based on their immutable attributes, but their requested content. Stop asking rhetorical questions regarding racism.
I can't use a religious belief to refuse a rote service, but I can to refuse bespoke work that expresses your views.
This case was never about refusing service to LGBT couples, it was about refusing bespoke work. To paint it as anything else, and in defense of your argument that "Conservatives are anti-LGBT" because of this case is wrong and nothing short of propaganda.
White supremacy is on a lower tier of protection in America than things like race and sexual orientation.
Your argument that the baker was merely refusing to serve the customer because of the "content" does not hold up.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/3/20847943/mississippi...
> You don't have a right to force someone to create something they do not wish to create.
I responded to a comment painting this case as an example of conservatives refusing business to LGBT individuals, which it isn't. It is a case of refusing to be compelled to create content that expresses your views.
Of note, the baker in the referenced case offered to sell existing products. They simply refused the bespoke cake.
Yours is an example of discrimination of a rote service based not on content, but of immutable attribute. These are unrelated situations.
Why is "creating a cake to be used by gay people" different from "hosting an event for gay people" in your mind? Why shouldn't you be able to skip out on doing either if you don't believe that they're morally correct?
If the cake is not inherently gay (ie, literally stating "I am a gay wedding cake" or some such similar wording) how is the creation itself any different because of the consumer? If 2 men ask for a pink cake with chocolate frosting and a straight couple ask for a pink cake with chocolate frosting, there's no inherent difference in the product, and thus in the production.
If it's "I will need to interact with and consult with gay people endeavoring to undertake what I believe is an amoral act (marriage)" then how is it different from hosting the wedding?
This whole area is arbitrary and nonsensical lines. We'll be better off when the same protective rights extended to visible minorities are extend to invisible minorities. You claim they're unrelated, I disagree. For now, the law agrees with you and I can concede that.
Again, seems like the baker was totally okay to sell the couple any of the pre-baked cakes, which would qualify as "creating a cake to be used by gay people".
The only difference is who the consumer is. Also, the hollow difference between "I created this just for you" vs. "I created this, and you will be using it" of your pre-baked vs bespoke cake example seems extremely weak to me. Legally, this doesn't matter, but hey legally at one point black people couldn't vote because "reasons".
The point I'm getting at: Why was OP comfortable with half measures? Why is "black" a protected class, even against "deeply held religious beliefs" but "gay" isn't? Why is "use a product you created just for me" different from "use a product you created"? This difference feel arbitrary to me, and grounded more in homophobia than any sort of sound logic.
Put bluntly: If you think gay people shouldn't be allowed to request cakes, I don't see how you can logically hold the belief that black people should be allowed to request cakes.
As I've expressed over and over, this isn't about refusing to conduct business.
If it were a doctor it would be different, but it's a non-essential baked item.
They don't want to work. Do not make them work. Let their business die and find another bakery.
If the majority of conservatives hold (and try to post) homophobic views, then it seems that banning the majority of them is the right thing to do.
But that's because I believe in private property and freedom of association as well as personal responsibility for one's actions while it seems "conservatives" in 2019 do not from the public stances they have adopted in their political efforts.
1. Outlaw "extremism"
2. Label your political enemies as "extrmist."
3. ???
4. Eutopia
I am, however, willing to support a movement that results in conservative content being demonetized if American conservatism continues to pander to and fall back on its racist and reactionary cores. It isn't clear to me why social disapprobation and pressure on the whole to excise reactionaries is inappropriate in this context.
They don't.
> It isn't clear to me why social disapprobation and pressure on the whole to excise reactionaries is inappropriate in this context.
I consider the moral-fascism of modern illiberal progressive rhetoric to be rather abhorrent. Are you fine with being socially outcast?
This is counterfactual, and I'm not interested in debating facts.
> I consider the moral-fascism of modern illiberal progressive rhetoric to be rather abhorrent.
I'm sorry, but this is word salad. You don't know any of my concrete political positions.
> Are you fine with being socially outcast?
I am extremely comfortable with reactionaries being socially outcast. I belong to a few different groups that are traditionally (and violently) targeted when reactionary movements gain social and political power. Minimizing the ability of reactionaries to undermine systems of government and public discourse directly serves my end of continuing to exist in a liberal democracy. I'd quote Popper, but that's a little bit too cliche at this point.
Downvoters please explain - we have tons of threads about homeless and joblessness and how tech is concerned with eliminating jobs instead of creating them.
If you give this responsibility directly to advertisers then the advertisers are responsible for every single misplaced ad. They have no scapegoat if somebody comes knocking and asks why they support Mr Very Evil by giving them money.
In turn, creators have to be careful about what they say and viewers are slightly less interested in tamed content.
With creators further restricted and not being paid as much, they reached out for third party funding sources (bypassing Yotube) and started to seriously consider other platforms as alternatives.
Worse still, once one media company had seen success at trying to "cancel" Youtube, others strive to capitalize on the same opportunity.
Now Youtube is stuck trying to implement forever more complicated filtering models, employing larger and larger numbers of humans for manual verification and are trying to find an impossible balance of responsibility.
Dealing with news media is pretty much the same as dealing with bullies - simply ignore them and they'll go away. The advertisers will eventually come back when the heat is off and they see their competitors doing really well.
Are you in a position to know about that, though? I mean, would you expect to be made aware of whether these changes were financially efficient to YouTube? Or are you just presuming they are not?
YouTube directly lost money by introducing these changes, because content that is demonetized doesn't make YouTube any money either. However, the bigger picture is that if YouTube in its entirety becomes advertiser unfriendly, then much more money is lost by them.
So the question whether YouTube lost money with these demonetization rules is not so easy to answer.
I did proceed my statement with "As far as I know", meaning I'm willing to be educated differently.
> I mean, would you expect to be made aware of whether these
> changes were financially efficient to YouTube? Or are you
> just presuming they are not?
Again, I'm willing to be told differently, but the big advertisers that I was aware of were Disney, Coke and Car Manufacturers, none of which ever seemed to return, despite Youtube bending the knee in trying to get them to return.
As another comment says, Youtube loses money delivering content without adverts. As the number of demonetized videos increases, so do the losses from those videos.
My point is essentially that they although they made these changes, it doesn't appear to have benefited them. The number of "controversies" increases regardless of what they do, but now all that happens is that they hurt the communities they want to protect (such as LGBT) and annoy others.
I guess my point is that you're not going to be told differently, because that information is proprietary. It is not YouTube's habit to go around letting all the curious people know the details of its financials or the inner workings of its decision-making apparatus. You would not expect to be told all the factors that weigh into the feature's development, nor how it's turning out. So the fact that nobody has informed you or publicly announced that demonetization's goals are being achieved is the expected outcome, whether or it is performing as desired.
The only solid evidence you or I have access to is that they are still doing it. That at least strongly suggests that it has some significant benefits from YouTube's perspective, considering all the downsides you so rightly point out.
Secondly, the experiment itself was contrived: They uploaded thousands of videos (with no video or audio) to a single channel, and looked at the monetization status. The issue is:
1. Youtube's system is probably not stateless. It most likely looks at the uploaders history and other channel data points.
2. An upload with no video or audio content is an abnormal data point. It's an outlier and doesn't represent real case scenario.
Therefore, you can't really extrapolate the results from this experiment and reach any sort of conclusion.
We dont know how Youtube´s system operates which is actually part of the problem as the lack of transparency makes it hard for anyone to make any reasonable assessment.
> 2. An upload with no video or audio content is an abnormal data point. It's an outlier and doesn't represent real case scenario.
Not really as titles (combined with other meta-data) have for a long time impacted the state of monetization, suppression and view count for any given video regardless of its content.
Sure, which is why this isn't "conclusive proof Youtube is blocking LGBTQ content". As I stated above, it's a contrived experiments and the results most likely can't be extrapolated, and you can't reach any definitive conclusions from it.
> Not really as titles (combined with other meta-data) have for a long time impacted the state of monetization
I'm not saying they don't play a role, most likely all of these data points are fed into the model. What I'm saying is that Youtube is primarily a video/audio site, so running an experiment with no audio/video isn't testing the model the way it runs in practice.
The model wasn't made to classify only titles, this is an abnormal input and therefore the output can't be used to reach any conclusions.
I didn't want to spend a half hour watching those goofballs in the video explain that their spreadsheets really mean something, so I took my own dumb stab at it.
No idea if it works this way. But even this naive algorithm could have a similar effect to the one being seen. So on one hand, it seems like a Won't Fix, because this is the product, and it's functioning as designed. On the other hand, this might be a nasty enough side effect that they should consider not doing it this way.This is like a soft preview of the AI Alignment Problem.
In one sense, the YT algorithm punishes me for not maximizing watch time, but I'll never fall afoul of this kind of concern and best of all I don't monetize through advertisers.
I make tutorials and if people like them so much they want more, they pay me on a subscription basis. No advertisers needed!