YouTube Is Fighting the 'Adpocalypse' With a Less Trigger-Happy Flagging System (theverge.com) 218
YouTube has rolled out a new algorithm that the company says will more accurately reflect YouTube's guidelines for ad-friendly material and result in fewer videos being flagged as advertiser-friendly. "It will supposedly reduce the number of demonetized listings by 30 percent, so 'millions more videos' will be able to make money off the full range of advertisements," reports The Verge. From the report: A YouTube manager writes that the new algorithm was trained by nearly three months' worth of human reviews, starting after YouTube added a manual appeals process for creators in August. Theoretically, this should narrow the range of false positives -- videos that were incorrectly flagged for promoting drug use, using excessive profanity, highlighting gratuitous violence, or otherwise featuring content that advertisers might find objectionable. It's being applied retroactively, so creators who didn't appeal could still get some old videos remonetized. Google also encourages people to keep appealing potentially incorrect flags, because "this updated system is an improvement, but it's not perfect."
Advertising (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Which adblocker blocks Youtube ads?
Mostly I just try to avoid the site these days because the ads are so annoying.
Re:Advertising (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basic ad-block plus on Firefox, and I have never seen a youtube ad there. I hadn't even realized youtube had advertisements at the start of videos until I started trying to use youtube on my TV instead of computer.
For the TV, I have a basic adblock running on my router. It does not block all ads though, but I think it is blocking some. I need to rework the blacklist some more though. When I do see an ad on youtube I will often skip it, and sometimes I'll skip the stupid video altogether.
I don't care one
Re: (Score:2)
uBlock Origin does. AdBlock Plus does.
Safe to say any ad blocker worth its salt does.
People who appreciate other peoples' work (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: People who appreciate other peoples' work (Score:2)
Then you should complain to YouTube that too many people arenâ(TM)t watching the ads. I started blocking the ads when 15s became an unskippable 1:30. At one point they were even allowing full other YouTube movies as âoeadsâ although they eventually became skippable after 30s.
And the worst thing is that I donâ(TM)t care for any of the ads, I donâ(TM)t need a new car, Iâ(TM)m too poor to buy most of the luxury items and Iâ(TM)m really not interested in makeups and perfume.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get a little money from YouTube ads. It doesn't come anywhere near to paying for the hours that go into making my content. I'm okay with that but the more money I get the easier it is to justify the time spent. I used to be like you and think I was cool for knowing what an adblocker is.
I love that this got modded troll. People are really touchy when it comes to their perceived entitlement to be entertained for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Patreon is the way to go.
Yeah, and you can also become active in pushing for adservs to be more responsible and ethical about things like the malware risks involved. If you are in a position to choose what adserv is used for a site? Try to pick one that at least tries to keep from being a malware vector. Don't just whine about adblockers being used, start doing your part towards making it safe to turn them off or poke holes in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have an ad blocker but I turn it off for my subscribed channels so the creators can get a few shekels at least.
Re: (Score:2)
It is 2017 people. Who is still viewing Youtube without an adblocker???
In 2017, when was the last time you were able to go to a Web page that did not require you to turn off your adblocker?
Re: (Score:2)
It is 2017 people. Who is still viewing Youtube without an adblocker???
In 2017, when was the last time you were able to go to a Web page that did not require you to turn off your adblocker?
I think I've only run across a couple, it was 2016 when I saw a lot and that tended to mark the last time I visited that site. I still get to a lot of places, and a few attempts to hold content hostage for my turning off my adblocker may have gone unnoticed because I also require scripts get whitelisted, and none of the places I dropped are particularly missed.
I prefer not having to deal with prying malware off my systems. As long as they don't show awareness and respect for the fact that I don't want to
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, what about on smart TVs, AppleTV, etc.? :P
Re: (Score:2)
Cryptocurrency mining?
Re: (Score:2)
Just in case you are serious... I actually prefer to see the videos uploaded by people who are not trying to make a profit. They generally don't make an irritating intro sequence to announce their stupid video. Let's see an example:
I just searched for barbecue, we know there are barbecue aficionados out there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
What is the difference between these two videos? Well, one of them is insulting, irritating and I wouldn't mind if the entire productio
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I guess that's the problem with adblockers... I have to guess which videos have ads.
Wait a minute, I've had shitty videos up there for like ten years. Is there an ad before this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: Advertising (Score:2, Flamebait)
Or you could be an adult, realize that creative people need to be paid too and pay for your content directly if you don't want ads. I pay for YouTube Red, Hulu's no ads tier, and Amazon Prime for that very reason.
Re: (Score:2)
People do NOT need to be paid for half of the crap on youtube. They're uploading clips from a TV show, it's not their content, why pay them? Why should I have to sit through an ad to watch a movie preview - the movie preview already is an ad, so why watch an ad before I can watch an ad??
The advertising industry is evil. It is one of the primary sources of malware, it is constantly in your face with annoying or harmful ads. If someone makes their money from this industry then I don't have to support you. T
Re: (Score:2)
If more people had to pay for content, we'd certainly see less of those "top 10" videos that "blow your mind".
Seriously, if I had to pay what they're worth, I'd get money back.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I honestly would be quite happy to whitelist any ad group that makes a point--openly, publicly, and in both words and actions--of making sure that they don't serve as a malware vector.
If they really wanted my love? Let me also flag offensive ads, ads which are betting that the viewer will forget that they hate them but remember the brand, and say flat-out that I don't & won't for the foreseeable future use that product so stop showing me ads for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, guess what? Same shit was advertised with Cable TV - NO ADS!
I'm going to very pointedly put my finger in your face and laugh when history repeats itself with your precious online streaming services.
"...three months' worth of human reviews..." (Score:2)
The problem I see (Score:4, Interesting)
Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
is folks flagging stuff as 'controversial' because they disagree with it. Lots of the left wing channels got flagged. But even some science channels got flagged by the anti-climate change folks and the 'intelligent design' crowd.
The simplest solution would be for Google to simply say "all or nothing".
I've never understood why companies want to wade into arguments about what is acceptable speech. It's killing Hollywood, the NFL, CNN, the NYT, the professional lives of many high-profile people, and a whole lot of companies such as Twitter and Kelloggs.
Google could step up and say "It's not our job to regulate speech. If you want to advertize with us, it's all or nothing". It would be simple, easy, and cheap to implement.
As a second choice, they could say "If you want to specify which YouTube videos your ads get served to, give us a list. Otherwise, it's not our job to regulate or even *categorize* speech".
Trying to second-guess what advertizers find objectionable is a foolish goal.
If the advertizers have concerns, it should be their job to police it.
They tried that (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The advertisers freaked out thinking they'd be associated with supporting Nazis and pulled their ads.
Which is the real problem. It's retarded to think people will associate you with the video content, it's obvious you're just advertising on the site as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is the real problem. It's retarded to think people will associate you with the video content, it's obvious you're just advertising on the site as a whole.
The problem isn't just associations, but that you may have an objection to advertising to particular group. If I sell Nordic clothing, I may have a real objection to neo-nazis even seeing my ads and buying my products. If I sell condoms, I may have a real objection to my ads being shown on channels which will cause a barrage of hateful mail and phone calls.
I think the advertisers should be able to choose, but I think they should be provided with enough information to make informed choices. Overly broad
Re: (Score:2)
Which is the real problem. It's retarded to think people will associate you with the video content, it's obvious you're just advertising on the site as a whole.
The problem isn't just associations, but that you may have an objection to advertising to particular group. If I sell Nordic clothing, I may have a real objection to neo-nazis even seeing my ads and buying my products. If I sell condoms, I may have a real objection to my ads being shown on channels which will cause a barrage of hateful mail and phone calls.
I think the advertisers should be able to choose, but I think they should be provided with enough information to make informed choices. Overly broad classifications do not seem all that useful.
SRSLY? Your examples require blocking of viewers, not ads. Do you think that a Nazi is somehow not capable of looking at your ads, or that the Duggar's won't ever see an ad for condoms?
If an advertiser wants only a specific audience and no other to see their product ads, there is no solution.
Re: (Score:2)
SRSLY? Your examples require blocking of viewers, not ads. Do you think that a Nazi is somehow not capable of looking at your ads, or that the Duggar's won't ever see an ad for condoms?
I am not a binary thinker, and do not think everything has to be black or white, win or lose, success or failure. I think a reduction in exposure to unwanted audiences is a worthwhile thing in itself, even if only partially effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then you are the only advertiser with a conscience. Kudos to you, but the rest of the advertisers think "annoying you" and "advertising" are synonyms.
It's actually a decent portion of the advertisers who think that, and it's both the traditional and probably-true view--after all, just because you might not be in my target demographic or a potential sale now doesn't mean you won't be in the future, or in a position to lose me a sale.
It is, however, easier to confuse 'annoying you' with 'advertising' because it does admittedly increase brand recognition--but that may not necessarily translate into the sort of positive image that will get you sales, and if
The trouble is they don't want that choice (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thing that's weird is that the folks who serve up these ads haven't figured that out. Of course it will take a little work, but the Television industry has been doing this for years.
Scale is the difference. TV channels serve the same dozen ads on a hundred ad time slots each day. YouTube serves millions of different ads on billions of videos each day.
You might be able to pick up a handful of sand, but moving the entire beach is a different matter altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing that's weird is that the folks who serve up these ads haven't figured that out. Of course it will take a little work, but the Television industry has been doing this for years.
Scale is the difference. TV channels serve the same dozen ads on a hundred ad time slots each day. YouTube serves millions of different ads on billions of videos each day.You might be able to pick up a handful of sand, but moving the entire beach is a different matter altogether.
Well, the alternative is total failure. There is absolutely no impediment to having different packages of advertisements tailored to specific demographics. And no reason that a Youtuber cannot pick and choose say a conservative or liberal package, or one for older people or younger people's interest. If I have say a technical video I produced, I don't even want a Depends advertisement on it.
This is about as much rocket science as a file suffix. I'd even say that the first internet ad server service that
Re: They tried that (Score:3)
Which was really only advertisers being politically correct, YouTube couldâ(TM)ve let the whole thing blow over and/or allowed a way for advertisers to specify channel filters. Ad companies would never have used it because they really donâ(TM)t care as long as people see the ads and buy the stuff and everyone else wouldâ(TM)ve been happy and the SJW appeased.
Re: (Score:2)
it was their old system. It lead to a few adverts showing up on Neo-Nazi channels. The advertisers freaked out thinking they'd be associated with supporting Nazis and pulled their ads. Like it or not youtube, like tv, has to worry about offending people since people who get offended are loud. Annoying, but loud.
While most reasonable people would have no issue with demonetizing Nazi or White supremacist channels, Youtube's original "solution" ended up as people trying to squelch others.
The Young Turks or the MGTOW channels might have opinions that some folks don't like, but the concept of trying to put them out of business simply because you don't like their opinion is dumb.
Its a little amusing that the middle-far left has discovered a tool once used mainly by the religious right. Boycotting only works a smal
Re: (Score:2)
First off, I deplore the ideals espoused in _Mein Kamp_, and its sequel. Furthermore, I found _White Man's Bible_ illogical, irrational, unethical, immoral, and unjust.
All that said, demonitising video advocating/utilising those philosphical/theological/political positions, or anything similar is troubling. What happens when it is is decided that _Das Kapital_, and the philosophical/economic/political system it advocates is viewed as unacceptable? Alternatively, substitute _The Bhagavad Gita_, or _The Book of Coming Forth By Day_.
Then there is the issue of commenting on issues of the day, when those issues involve unsavory ideas, characters, actions, economic systems, or political theories.
You are right you know, and that's part of this whole problem. People on the far right and left have been complaining and getting perfectly civil youtube channels demonitized that merely espouse a different opinion than they hold.
The real freakshow channels were the first and easiest targets.
I'm pretty certain that Youtube has figured out where this all ends up, and it is a lot less money for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Place a political sign for an election in the front yard..
Will the electric, telephone, gas, internet and water company stop all services as they don't like the local politics?
Once a few big "social" media sites get too big they become a service needed to interact with local, state, federal governments?
People have their freedom of speech but won't be found by a search engine, have their political com
Re: (Score:2)
That would require Google actually having some balls.
The pussification will continue until everything is offensive (to someone.)
--
Hate Speech IS censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of advertisers would leave it. For them the damage of being on pro-Nazi videos, for example, would far outweigh any benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually not. For years this worked fine until some far left activists (ie. the old media) started making a load of noise about "some neo-Nazi videos". Until then people didn't give a shit and nor should they.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait wait wait... The "old media" are far left activists? You mean like the Daily Mail and Fox News?
I can't think who else you could mean... It's the Morning Star still going?
Re: (Score:2)
CNN, NBC, the BBC, Al Jazeera, The NYT, and basically every other non-alternative news outlet.
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC and Al Jazeera are far left activists? What. The. Fuck.
What does that make the Socialist Worker, the New European and the Morning Star? What about actual communists?
So do you consider Brietbart to be far right, or nearer the centre? If the latter, what about Storm Front and literal Nazis, where are they on this scale?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait wait wait... The "old media" are far left activists? You mean like the Daily Mail and Fox News?
You man CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC(and ABC AUS) Guardian, CBC, CTV, Global, Globe and Mail, NYT, Washington Post, USA Today? Boy oh boy, we got 2 vs all of those other ones. Well actually 3, because you forgot to rail against breitbart.
Re: (Score:2)
You think CNN, NBC, the Guardian and the WaPo are far left activists?
I think your political scale is miscalibrated. If the Guardian, widely regarded as a fairly centrist newspaper in the UK, is in your mind a far left activist then what are actual communists? Where does the Morning Star lie on your axis? Even the Mirror is much further left than the Guardian and way left of the WaPo.
Re: Simple solution (Score:2)
No it wouldnâ(TM)t. They wouldâ(TM)ve switched ad agencies and continue doing what theyâ(TM)re doing as soon as everything blew over. Corporations really donâ(TM)t care what they are put on as long as it is profitable, if there is a demographic within ISIS they wouldâ(TM)ve been glad to advertise to them.
Re: (Score:2)
If they marketed to ISIS they would quickly find that other customers started to avoid them. Like how Tiki torches are desperate not to become associated with Nazis because it would make their other customers buy fewer and the Nazi market isn't that big.
Re: (Score:2)
The simplest solution would be for Google to simply say "all or nothing".
No, an even simpler solution would be to not run any ads at all. It's even simpler than yours since they wouldn't have the burden of running the ad infrastructure. Of course then they wouldn't make any money.
And that's where your simplest solution falls down: they tried it since it's cheap and it turned out they didn't make as much money as they could because major advertisers left.
If the advertizers have concerns, it should be their j
Re: Simple solution (Score:2)
Walmart does. They are big enough they can tell their suppliers what to do. Walmart knows that their suppliers canâ(TM)t lose them.
Donâ(TM)t want to advertise on Google platforms and they would lose their demographic.
Re: (Score:2)
um what?
Wal-Mart is their customer, so what you're saying is that the vendor can't afford to piss off their customers. Which is true.
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm saying it works both ways. Google is the ad agency's customer, the vendor of the ads can't afford to piss off their customer (Google) either.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies don't want to get dragged into free speech debates, but sometimes they have no choice.
Take the NFL, for example. Some years back they started injecting more patriotism into their games - anthem singing, flags everywhere. It was great, almost everyone loved it (America being a country where displays of patriotism are widely admired), and they even got some government grant money for it.
Then a few players decide they don't want to take part, as they no longer feel they admire the country to that ext
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never understood why companies want to wade into arguments about what is acceptable speech.
Because other companies who do business with you only want to be associated with acceptable speech and don't want the burden of identifying that to fall on themselves.
Youtube didn't really care about this until the likes of Pepsi stopped giving them wheelbarrows of money.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube is not a broadcasting company. If people watch a video, it's because they choose to watch it, meaning they like the content. Companies refusing to display ads for their products before some content is pretty much like saying : because you like this content, we don't like you and we don't want you to buy our product.
It looks to me companies in the US now prefer to push a political agenda rather than to make a profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Here [youtube.com] is your anthem.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually see it rather prominently done on the other side. Pretty much every video of every channel that's dedicated to firearms sports is immediately demonetized... no matter how tame, apolitical, or polite it is.
Re: (Score:3)
It's done on both sides of the political spectrum, as well as a lot of content that isn't political at all. The only difference I've noticed is that a slightly higher proportion of right-wing YouTubers seem to think it's only happening to them, and blame it on "left wing media bias," whereas the lefties call it "corporate media bias."
Re: (Score:2)
I can only speak for the leftist circles I move in, but we are well aware that it's 4chan and right wing YouTube users. They discuss it quite openly, there is no need to guess.
Anyway, we have a better technique. Check out Operation Shiny Object. A guy called "Bearing" has been harassing small YouTube channels, with his mob of supporters. But he has a weakness: he can't resist responding to criticism. All we had to do was make a quick video or two every week and he couldn't resist making a long response, whi
Re: (Score:2)
I think we're talking about two different but related things: the "it" I'm referring to is YouTube demonetizing videos, whereas you seem to be talking about groups of people deliberately flagging videos as offensive.(?) My only point is that the demonetizing happens to everybody, not just the left or the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh okay, my mistake. You are right, their bot has been going a bit nuts lately.
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube is international. Gun videos might be seen a good fun in the US, but elsewhere in the country a love of guns is seen as suspicious.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense. Stupid people cannot accept voices disagreeing with them, because they cannot grasp the idea that they may be wrong themselves. Hence they create a filter-bubble and make the world a bit worse for everybody.
Anyways, I much rather give to Patreon for my favorite creators and block ads completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad ideas require censorship to survive. Else even stupid people could easily see how stupid the ideas and those following them are.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they very much do require censorship. Which is why we are seeing censorship and its ugly little sibling "chilling effects" on the raise all in the west.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, ignoring facts in decisions is pretty much one of the core definitions of "stupid".
You probably confuse "stupid" with "of low intelligence". The two do not match. People with low intelligence can be very much not stupid by clearly understanding what they do and do not understand and seeking expert advice on the latter. The problem stupid people have (even those of high intelligence) is vastly over-estimating their skills and hence arriving at invalid conclusions, such as to which facts do matter and w
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of the "right" wing channels continually get flagged. But keep playing the victim card you leftist communist.
Re: (Score:2)
Politics is one controversial category. Religion is another.
It's fine to flag those, but they need to be distinguished. One advertiser might be fine with political controversy, but don't want to be associated with religious views. Another might be the opposite.
And I think they should have an informed choice where they put their advertising dollars.
But that means finding out exactly why people found it controversial, and not just that.
YouTube has really pissed off its creators (Score:3)
If a viable alternative becomes available, they will be gone, even if it is years from now.
Morale: Do not do something like this to people you critically depend on.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people think that creators won't move to a new platform until a new, BIGGER audience can be found somewhere else. I believe that any minimally viable video platform that has monitization that works at all, and can import back catalogs in some sort of reasonable manner is all that is required to start an avalanche. That shift would start with simply having content on multiple platforms, and letting viewers try out the new platform.
The creators are pissed, and intelligent viewers will realize that p
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Same here. YouTube does not have exclusivity and it is not _their_ content in the first place. They seem to have forgotten that.
Re: (Score:2)
It needn't even be bigger. If someone who now has a million viewers that pay him nothing because he's demonetized and could have 10k elsewhere where he actually gets paid for it, he's gone. Because 10k times x (with x > 0) is more than a million times zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically the internet has greatly surpassed traditional media as far as viewership numbers go, and its not even close any more. Its the big secret that the media will not talk about.
Re: (Score:2)
If your business model is "You make the content, we make the profit", you have to give people a reason to make content for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and if you demonetize those videos, people will stop making them.
it's out of control (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In every other case of advertising, advertisers have input. "We want this ad to be played 20 times this month during initial airing of The Walking Dead"
This is youtubes real problem and its a problem other media sol
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need all advertisers
No, but you do need ones with big pockets. When your prominent customers stop working with you then *you* need to change. Telling them to bugger off only works if your business doesn't depend on them for income.
Ad friendly depends on who's advertising (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably most advertisers don't care or would rather not impact on free speech, given the choice.
Probably all people who voted for Trump actually are great supporters and fans of Hillary Clinton. There, that's my contribution to opposite-day.
Ad-Match (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let the advertisers decide (each by channel/video) (Score:2)
Forward all the 'oh dear I feel so triggered' complaints to a queue accessible to the individual advertisers whose ads showed up on the page. With text of the complaint. Give complainers a blank space and force them to type something rather than select from a list. If the advertisers really care they will have someone monitor the queue, can read the complaints and decide. If they flag it will keep that advertiser off of that channel or that video.
- Advertisers do have a right to decide where their money
Who cares? (Score:2)
Maybe Facebook could take a hint from this (Score:2)
I am a photographer, and admin of groups numbering over 20,000 members. I am also currently in Fb jail because of an image I posted that shows a female and a small amount of pubic hair. No nipple, no bum, no labia.
*rolls eyes*
Re: (Score:3)
Why would YouTube do this?
Because the policy was causing lots of highly-popular content creators to consider ditching YouTube for other sites. They want to make money for their videos, and if YouTube is going to stop the flow of revenue they have no reason to post there. But, not-coincidentally, people go to YouTube to watch the videos of those creators. If those videos stop appearing there people have less reason to go to YouTube.
See how the system benefits publishers and creators as well when there is no exclusivity contract locki
Re: (Score:2)
People are now looking for real sites to host their video clips. The fun people, smart people started looking for better sites.
Sites that allow media to be uploaded, search for, linked to and commented on without the complexity of SJW.
The need to to censor was not a good policy as top "social" media sites are not unique anymore in bandwidth support and encoding support.
Other better, smarter, more fun sites will emerge from the censorship that
Re: (Score:2)
Just as SJW now watch over videos, news, movie review, politics, arts, culture, history and block content and comments....
The people of East Germany had to work hard to get freedom back.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And they critically depend on people continuing to make content for them, so they have to make sure enough money ends up with the content creators. This "demonetizing" nonsense indicates they do not understand their own business model.
Re: (Score:2)
People turned to YouTube exactly because TV was regulated into oblivion and all that was left was cookie-cutter, family friendly "entertainment" that was about as entertaining and exciting as watching the linoleum warp in a moist Summer.
Now YouTube is supposed to be turned into the same kind of bullshit, and we're moving on to something less linoleum-y.
Re: (Score:3)
Some of the most popular TV programming of all time would not be allowed today.
All in the Family for instance could not get past a pilot episode today. Someones feelings might get hurt.
Meanwhile the casting couch rape culture and pedophile rings of Hollywood are only just now being noticed.. Hollywood is full of a bunch of hypocrite assholes that think all their own problems are also part of everyone elses lives. I got news for you Hollywood... what the rest of the country isnt... is like Hol
Re: (Score:2)
Pffft. Harmless.
Married with children [youtube.com].
That show wouldn't make it to the end of the pilot. It would get canceled at the first "A fat woman came into the store".
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. Here [youtube.com] is the "a fat woman came into the store" collection.