YouTube Executives Ignored Warnings, Letting Toxic Videos Run Rampant (bloomberg.com) 426
Proposals to change recommendations and curb conspiracies on YouTube were sacrificed for engagement, Bloomberg reported Monday, citing Google employees. From the report: In recent years, scores of people inside YouTube and Google, its owner, raised concerns about the mass of false, incendiary and toxic content that the world's largest video site surfaced and spread. One employee wanted to flag troubling videos, which fell just short of the hate speech rules, and stop recommending them to viewers. Another wanted to track these videos in a spreadsheet to chart their popularity. A third, fretful of the spread of "alt-right" video bloggers, created an internal vertical that showed just how popular they were. Each time they got the same basic response: Don't rock the boat.
The company spent years chasing one business goal above others: "Engagement," a measure of the views, time spent and interactions with online videos. Conversations with over twenty people who work at, or recently left, YouTube reveal a corporate leadership unable or unwilling to act on these internal alarms for fear of throttling engagement. Wojcicki would "never put her fingers on the scale," said one person who worked for her. "Her view was, 'My job is to run the company, not deal with this.'"
The company spent years chasing one business goal above others: "Engagement," a measure of the views, time spent and interactions with online videos. Conversations with over twenty people who work at, or recently left, YouTube reveal a corporate leadership unable or unwilling to act on these internal alarms for fear of throttling engagement. Wojcicki would "never put her fingers on the scale," said one person who worked for her. "Her view was, 'My job is to run the company, not deal with this.'"
Echo chamber (Score:5, Insightful)
YouTube could break the echo chamber effect by recommending good quality videos on the same topic. If someone is interested in vaccinations, there's no reason to just recommend conspiracy videos on the topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube doesn't know what it wants, except to be the next TV. Same echo chamber all the time. The problem that youtube has is that the CEO has no clue, in turn it's directionless. It only reacts to the actions of others, and then over-reacts as a correction. The media will line up an attack like Pewdiepie is a neo-nazi, or jontron is a nazi, xyz thing is extremist(but actually isn't). But then spend years ignoring terrorist organizations posting snuff, and glory to allah for throwing gays off rooftops
Doesn't that go both ways? (Score:2)
That said, I'm a lefty McLefty and I get the occasional right wing video in my channel. Mostly Sargon of Arkad. I used to get a fair amount of them actually because I subscribe to a bunch of atheist channels (Aronra, Genetic Skeptic) but the bulk of the YouTube skeptic community pivoted to anti-SJW vids about a year ago (more view, more patreon donations, they followed the money) and I couldn't care less about that
I should add (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sargon is right wing? The guy is further left then Justin Trudeau, and Jr is pretty far left. Far enough that he almost aligns with the NDP.
Re: (Score:2)
Sargon criticises and mocks 3rd wave feminism and intersectionality, so yes he must be right-wing. There is no middle ground anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
YouTube could break the echo chamber effect by recommending good quality videos on the same topic. If someone is interested in vaccinations, there's no reason to just recommend conspiracy videos on the topic.
There are very good reasons. The algorithms are tuned to increase engagement and time on platform, and they have learned that funnelling people down a gradual but psychologically compelling rabbit hole from vaccine scepticism all the way through to 'the government wants to kill your children!' keeps them more engaged for longer. Simply giving people a science documentary about vaccines would end engagement at the first video, or more likely, a few minutes into the video before they get bored. Leading people
Re: (Score:2)
Define "good quality".
When you search "vaccinations" on Google, good quality results show up on top. Apparently, they already have the tools.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, when you search "vaccination" on YouTube, you also get mostly good quality results.
Re: (Score:2)
No text to speech crap either
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really makes you think. (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus the fact that all of this "incendiary and toxic content" that I'm supposed to be worried about is "alt-right" or just plain "conservative". Ignore the Muslim recruitment videos, left-wing hate (Linda Sarsour, etc.), Pallywood, Communists, etc.
That's why they have no credibility: They're not against "incendiary and toxic content" - they're against conservatives.
What's wrong with Muslim recruitment videos? (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyway, terrorists videos get pulled when reported, Linda Sarsour seems to just advocate for Palestine (I don't know that much about here, but I couldn't find anything antisemitic there), Pallywood [wikipedia.org] is a pretty controversial concept in and of itself and Communists are generally a pretty peaceable bunch on YouTube, certainly
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I mean, Communists only kill 100,000,000+ people in the last 100 years. But, you know, other than that, they're a pretty peaceful bunch.
It's not just rw snowflakes (Score:2)
Google suspends and demonetizes all kinds of shit [maxlaumeister.com] that has nothing to do with politics. And it's not like lefty channels haven't been at the mercy [youtube.com] of Google's arbitrary whims.
They just suck as a company, period.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
Go look at the data. People are more likely to be recommended left/liberal/mainline views than they are to be recommended right/conservative/"conspiracy" videos.
There is flow from each category to the others, but the overall flow is largely in favor of left/liberal/mainstream. The idea that Youtube is radicalizing people is false.
Do you have the data (Score:2)
So I look up some Alpha Omega Sin (a right leaning game channel) I'll get a few right leaning videos in my feed. Click a few of those and before long I'll have some Sargon of Arkad and Count Dankula. Keep going and eventually I hit Baked Alaska and eventually Richard Spencer (or his friends
Re: (Score:2)
come on - have you seen the shit they are talking about? Children's videos killing their favorite superheroes? At some point we have to agree on decency. Remember, they are RECOMMENDING this shit, not just hosting it.
Go watch the first few minutes of the original Transformers movie and get back to me about kids having their cartoon heroes killed. Your fucking shit isn't even canonical.
RR (Score:5, Funny)
Something has changed (Score:5, Funny)
I have been watching cat videos on YouTube for 10 years now and it has been a good run. But not they have stated to show the odd dog video now and then.
Thatâ(TM)s extremely offensive and now I am afraid to open the browser because with no warning what so ever, BANG, there it is. A DOG video in my recommended feed.
Meow.
So basically ... (Score:5, Interesting)
... UsTube.
Not YouTube - "you" might hold unapproved opinions or something. UsTube. Our opinions, not yours.
define toxic videos (Score:3)
any video with subject matter someone does not agree with. So does this mean youtube is shutting down sine they cannot play any videos without offending someone?
Google is all about the $$$ (Score:2)
Until it comes to paying. Then they will demonetize at the drop of a hat.
BREAK UP GOOGLE!
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
my 4 year old was watching an age-appropriate channel
So, you let an algorithm do the parenting for you? That's what i call real faith in technology!
Well, yeah. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an issue of scope, profit margin, and market evaluations.
You know why Steam doesn't hand-pick games to be on their marketplace? Scope of the task. They clean up the biggest disasters, but basically filter feed on whatever pops out of that ecosystem.
Same thing for the Microsoft store, the android marketplace, and large parts of the Apple marketplace.
And those are marketplaces where the profit margins are relatively large.
Well, relatively large, compared to Youtube.
In setting any standards involving an expectation of paid human oversight - including just managing a bunch of volunteers - even at some absurdly low 1 to 1 million ratio, they risk the value they hold in the primary underlying motivation of their bosses: The market value of their platform.
That's the real issue - business stuff like staff responding to DMCA complaints is also expensive, but the market isn't going to lower their stock for that. But having to hire and maintain staff to stand in as referees in effectively political contests... that's going to generate blowback they can't shuffle under some easy cost line in a report.
That's kind of the problem with being a public traded company. The pressures aren't just financial - they are also largely the political fashion sense of the market pushing everyone to play a game of taking the most they can from contracts (customer and employee alike), and then providing that value back as maximal perceived market value.
The irony is that we call it being 'publicly traded' - where it functions mostly to funnel wealth into fewer and fewer private hands in the end.
In the end, our shared retirement accounts get regularly raided and scammed, and the entire market is expected to crash, as if it was a force of nature - because minimal oversight is seen as more expensive and odious than frequent disaster.
That's the shape of the system we make for ourselves.
Ryan Fenton
"Toxic" is so vague and undefined (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
>YouTube already demotes you if you swear
I'm starting to hear more and more about that. Honest question: Is there any evidence for it? Is it in the TOS? TIA.
Re: (Score:2)
That can't be right (Score:2)
Women CEOs were supposed to be better than male CEOs and yet somehow they don't seem to be much different.
Profit motive Caring (Score:2)
It's time to admit that not having charters for corporations is a bad thing.
Predictable (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump was never supposed to get elected. Brexit was never supposed to happen. Mainstream corporate media could no longer be relied upon to adequately shape public opinion. Something had to be done.
Pewdiepie became a nazi to be used as the excuse for the adpocolypse. Alex Jones was the lowest hanging fruit to be plucked and deplatformed. CNN videos went from 100 views to 100K views as independent journalists and commentators were pushed down. "trusted flaggers" such as the ADL and SPLC were brought on as the shadow inquisition. Still, it's not enough.
This is the future of Youtube. [youtube.com]
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want:
* Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or
* A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
We know that oppressive governments the world round demand the second option. Which should you demand?
"To know who rules you, ask: who am I not allowed to criticize in public? Those are your rulers."
Collectivists took over Universities. (Score:2, Interesting)
It used to be the case that a higher education was good for exposing young minds to challenging ideas, and thereby teaching them to stare with resolve into the deep abyss that is existence, and to rebut bad arguments with good arguments.
However, collectivist authoritarians (namely Marxists) began their "long march" through the Institutions of the West; in the Universities, they started curbing speech by setting up "safe spaces", and then once the "safe" space spread across most of a campus, they started des
Re:Collectivists took over Universities. (Score:5, Interesting)
As an actual Marxist, I fucking wish Marxism was spreading throughout universities, but alas it isn't at all.
What is spreading though universities is consumer ideology. People treating their degrees as commodities, demanding "consumer satisfaction" from their time at university.
Institutes of learning have been invaded by the market, with everything valuable worthy and fun driven out.
All that shit you wrote has no basis in reality, and shows you've never been within 10km of a university ever, but as a Marxist I want everyone to have that opportunity. We should be spending the surplus of society on enabling everyone to reach their highest potential, regardless of economic background. Even you.
Re: (Score:3)
wtf is an "actual marxist"
I assume it's someone who follows the writings of Marx.
Of course, those are just writings, ideas, not an actual stable functional system.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what's the difference between libertarians, fascists and socialist?
Re: (Score:2)
wtf is an "actual marxist" ... is this like people who claim to be Libertarian?
.
No... an Actual Marxist, or rather, a True Marxist, apparently lives in Scotland.
.
*shrug*.
Re: (Score:2)
Except zero of those countries are marxist. Do you even know what the word means?
Re: (Score:2)
Except zero of those countries are marxist.
Right. The problem with Marxism is that it cannot exist in a practical way, because the system is inherently unstable.
Re:Collectivists took over Universities. (Score:5, Informative)
In Marxism, the labor theory of value rules.
The labor theory of value (the price of a good or service should be equal to the total amount of labor value required to produce it) doesn't reward increase in efficiency. Why should I invest in a method to produce the same goods twice as fast, if that requires halving the price ? Without any effort to maximize efficiency, you'll quickly lose against competing communitities, and that's one reason it's unstable. Also, without a free market with independent agents settling on a mutually agreed price, you'll need an authority to set prices for you, which introduces a target point for corruption, and power struggles.
Re:Collectivists took over Universities. (Score:4, Informative)
More generally, the problem with the labor theory of value is that it ignores the value of knowledge. The theory was defined in the context of a stable agrarian society with minimal industry, where the knowledge of how to produce things was fairly uniformly distributed, and innovation was so rare as to be negligible. With no differentials in knowledge to speak of, the output levels were entirely determined by the materials available and the labor applied.
As soon as you recognize that knowledge has value, though, it's trivial to see why the labor theory falls on its face. Invent a way to make widgets with half the materials and half the labor and you're producing twice as much as your competitor for the same cost. More subtly, but perhaps more importantly, discover a situation where some unavailable (or nonexistent!) good or service is needed, and arrange to remedy that need, and you may have generated 10X or 100X value. Knowing where to apply resources to maximize their utility can generate incredible returns to multiple segments of society, often with no losers.
A less-obvious result of ignoring the value of knowledge is that the labor theory is inherently zero-sum. To produce more widgets you have to shift labor away from making whatsits, so you make less of them. But the reality is that you can often create a way to make whozits which can be used to dramatically increase the efficiency of producing both widgets and whatsits, so by taking labor away to produce an entirely new thing, you actually produce more of everything. Such positive-sum outcomes are actually more common than not.
As a philosopher, Marx had some moderately-interesting ideas. As an economist, his ideas were just plain wrong.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
See, but here's the thing. Irresponsible speech that promotes violence will always lead to suppression. You 4chan jackoffs knew this a long time ago, but thought that it was more important to be edgelords and have lulz than it was to be responsible. So now, you reap the whirlwind and spoil it for everyone. You think it's fun to talk about kids who are slaughtered being "crisis actors" and the height of irony to wear nazi uniforms and then you're shocked...shocked, I tell you...when society comes and slaps you the fuck down and tells you to sit down and shut up. Then, you feign surprise when the real sickos shout out your vidya heroes when they shoot up a church or murder a bunch of school kids like you didn't know it was coming.
Thanks for fucking it up for everyone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A society that can't take edgelords in stride is pretty damn useless. Maybe the answer is to realize that humor, tasteless or otherwise, is unimportant, and let is pass.
Re: (Score:2)
A society that can't take edgelords in stride is pretty damn useless. Maybe the answer is to realize that humor, tasteless or otherwise, is unimportant, and let is pass.
And if it had no real world consequence then I would be on your side. However, hate crimes have been spiking and it turns out some edgelords aren't really being edgy at all. Should we just take people being murdered because of these internet clowns in stride?
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Really? Fewer than 8K hate crimes per year in a country of 330M people, and you see a problem? Out of ~1.1M violent crimes, mind you....
It should also be noted that violent crime rates have fallen by ~1/3 over the last three decades.
I think the problem is (Score:4, Insightful)
We fought hard to delegitimize organized violence against minorities in this country. There was widespread anti-black terrorism committed with impunity right up until the 70s (and the occasional incident in the 80s and 90s).
It's not that Americans evolved some higher form of intelligence or empathy. We're the same folk we were 40 years ago minus a chunk of bigotry. What I'm saying is that it would be effortless for us to regress back to the KKK days. I'm a white dude and I do not want that.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the article you're probably referencing [nbcnews.com]. Since it was the 1st hit on google.
What does that 17% mean? Do you think NBC did due diligence in understanding the numbers to give you an accurate picture of reality? Or do you think they headlined a specific narrative?
Now if you ignore what the media say and go to the actual FBI press release [fbi.gov] you will understand why there was a super scary increase in hate crime for 2017.
. Although the numbers increased last year, so did the number of law enforcement agencies reporting hate crime data—with approximately 1,000 additional agencies contributing information.
That is a very different reality than what narrative is being pushed. Now you may think that a year to year raw comprison is valid but the FBI doesn't as they caution agai
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're saying "censor the edgelords to make sure we get the racists". Nope. I'm saying "don't censor the racists either". The solution to "bad speech" is more speech. Freedom: it's important.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
So what makes a victim of any other similar crime less valued and less harmed than the victim of a "hate crime"?
In a world where equal rule of law is supreme, motive should only determine guilt or innocence, and not severity.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Motive and state of mind have always been part of legal determinations. If I shoot you dead, the severity of the punishment will vary wildly depending on my motive, from
'I'm a dumbass who doesn't know how to handle a gun'
through
'I shot you because you punched me'
to
'I've hated you a long time and I've been planning to shoot you all week'.
As for hate crimes, the theory behind that is nothing to do with the 'value' of the victim. It's addressing the secondary effects; punching people hurts those I punch and is assault, but punching people because they're Jewish causes harm in the Jewish community, causing them to live in fear, increasing marginalization and generally causing wider social harm beyond the immediate act. This is analogous to terrorism. If I kill 10 people purely to watch them die, then I'm a plain vanilla mass murderer. But if I kill 10 people because they're infidels and I want to bring on the global caliphate then that elevates me to a terrorist, and brings with it a commensurate increase in the resources wielded against me and in the severity of the response. That's why we call it 'terrorism', the harm caused is much wider than the immediate effects of the act.
Re: (Score:3)
However, hate crimes have been spiking
Not really. There was a "spike" in 2016 but the increase came about because of increased hate crime against white people (marginal effect) and because of an increase of reporting agencies participating with the FBI to gather the statistics (big effect). Since after the election the trend has been going down.
Should we just take people being murdered because of these internet clowns in stride?
You shouldn't use an anecdote to base your opinion. By all metrics and by all statistics it isn't as bad as the media or you portray it.
Re: (Score:3)
Or you could actually ask for supporting data like a reasonable person instead of calling me a liar. Now, that you have supporting data; Am I still a liar or are you the one in a fantasy because everything you said is bullshit.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime... [fbi.gov]
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime... [fbi.gov]
6121 in 2016.
5850 in 2015.
This is the 4% total hate crime incident spike talked about for 2016.
3489 in 2016 were racially motivated
3310 in 2015 were racially motivated
This is a 5% to describe the racially motivated spik
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Society interprets hateful edgelords as damage and routes around them.
...hence the need for speech codes in places like university campuses**, right?
** It should be noted that a university is precisely the place where ideas noble and stupid, concepts altruistic and hateful... all of this should be debated openly, in an environment that encourages clear logic, reason, and rhetoric. Alas, there seems to be a lack of that on most campuses these days. Probably because people go around calling every idea that makes them uncomfortable "hateful" and suchlike, without even trying to do anything beyond generalization and stereotype.
Re: (Score:3)
Gosh, you're so close to understanding my point. We get speech codes on campus because edgelords thought irresponsible speech was the height of cleverness and society will eventually say, "enough".
Speech codes are bad. But they are what society is going to do when people don't know how to fucking behave responsibly. If you want to be an edgelord, you have to be prepared to accept the consequences. But just be aware that every
Re: (Score:3)
There's a needed distinction between "discourse acceptable in polite society" and "legal discourse allowed on common carriers". Let the edgelords and the pornographers and everyone else the finger-wagging moral scolds hate have their place. .
Re: (Score:3)
That's a lot of words to say that you like censorship. I don't.
The solution for "bad speech" is more speech. Don't like speakers that "radicalize" people? Present a more compelling argument. Should be easy: after all, you're right and they're wrong, yes? But if you insult instead of argue, and the radicals welcome people and validate them, you're going to lose.
Some social norms are bad. We need the ability to "radicalize" people away from those. And it's not your job to choose.
Where in the constitution... (Score:2)
Does it say we get free speech as long as we're "responsible" with it?
Encouraging violence is not speech.
Speech that does not tell people to be violent cannot incite violence. If someone decides to engage in violence over an idea, they're morons responsible for their own actions.
Blaming other people for your behavior is childish. Justifying tyranny because someone blamed words for their actions is just as absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
Does what say?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but in both cases, the side that promoted violence ended up losing. You should have thought that through.
False choice dichotomy (Score:2)
Sure, go ahead and pretend there's no middle ground.
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want:
* Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or
* A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
My own perspective is that something fundamental is missed when arguments are framed in this way. I believe underlying issue is piss poor governance. The tech industry generally is royally failing for selfish reasons to create structures where positive rather than negative outcomes are reinforced.
Governance doesn't have to be tyrannical. Governing power doesn't have to be centralized in any meaningful way or in any way related to those holding actual positions of governing authority in the real world.
The only necessary ingredient is that systems be designed to reinforce good rather than rewarding bad behavior.
What would eBay be like without buyer and seller feedback? Seems likely the answer is total cesspool of unchecked corruption as bad actors are rewarded for predatory behavior. Without feedback to provide incentive for good behavior and express earned reputation eBay for as flawed as is would quickly devolve into a Wal-Mart or Amazon "marketplace" or worse.
Without moderation system to reinforce good behavior everyone on this site would be buried alive in Nazi ASCII art and APKs.
The problem that needs solving is piss poor governance. How to create a governance model where interest in corporate profit does not actively promote bad behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be different, for sure, if YouTube were not an effective monopoly. But while they are, their censorship deserves the same skepticism as government censorship.
Re: Good (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a potential difference between not-promotion, and censoring. There is definitely an expressed desire among some to censor, ban, block objectionable content like videos promoting pizzagate and other nonsense. I think that is insane.
But refusing to promote some content, that is a potentially different story, depending on how it is done.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the thing is people don't start out wanting to see crazy conspiracy theory stuff. People start out watching one thing and 5 hours later they're doubting vaccines. That's the problem. Back in thr day we never had to worry about this, because you had to actively seek crazy stuff out.
So explain Christianity?
OK, I'm not actually anti-Christian, but I hope you get my point? 100 years ago we had seances all over the place as mediums made a killing. We had utopias and cults aplenty. YouTube isn't anything special here. Humans gonna human.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the thing is people don't start out wanting to see crazy conspiracy theory stuff. People start out watching one thing and 5 hours later they're doubting vaccines. That's the problem. Back in thr day we never had to worry about this, because you had to actively seek crazy stuff out.
So explain Christianity?
OK, I'm not actually anti-Christian, but I hope you get my point? 100 years ago we had seances all over the place as mediums made a killing. We had utopias and cults aplenty. YouTube isn't anything special here. Humans gonna human.
Small point of order: Christianity (As defined by any commonly-accepted version of the Bible, specifically the New Testament) doesn't promote, define, or encourage seances, mediums, etc. If I recall correctly, it actually prohibits such practices (that is, prohibits those who claim to speak with the dead.)
Otherwise, yeah, people are gonna do dumb stuff. Makes humanity really frustrating and really adorable all at once.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep. "Toxic" has come to mean "disagrees with liberal left-think." Disagree with the cult of human-caused global warming? You're "toxic." Think having a penis makes you a man? You're "toxic." Think "gender" and "sex" are synonyms? You're "toxic." Try to bring facts and logic into a conversation? "Toxic."
The last bastion of left-wing thought is to try and ban all other ideas, because they know that their ideology does not stand up to rational examination. So the only way to survive is to simply ban anyone po
Re: Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Cult of human-caused global warming?
You mean the vast amounts of science, observational evidence and work over decades that points to global warming's validity?
In opposition theres big company shills spewing weaponised lies in the media in order to confuse the issue. Like they did with cigarettes or ddt or shitty diets or lead in gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's settled then. Facts and "vast amounts of science" are clearly not enough.
May all of us together, the most worshipful and illustrious beings of true enlightenment, put a stop to this madness. Let us join and conspire to do this deed. The Earth must be cleansed in this imminent and holy silencing.
Woe to these wretched undesirables who have yet again fallen for the false prophet's lies. Do not question this benevolent truth that has been bestowed upon thee! Beware! You must repent your ignoranc
Re: (Score:2)
It's the sun, you fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the sun, you fucking idiot.
The light from the Sun is carefully measured, and it's been remarkably stable, with a very small (0.1% or so) decrease in average radiation since the 80's.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems we should all be able to agree that the climate changed from 2 mile deep glaciers covering 2/3rds of North America to a relatively glacier free US and Canada by the time Columbus got here in 1492. That's a whopping amount of climate change and dwarfs the few degrees C (or less) were discussing now.
Has climate changed? Yes. Is man made climate change statistically significant? I doubt it.
Either way, i'll take warmer days over a return to miles deep ice in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Science does not have a "culture". Academia does. It's publish or perish, and get public grant money or get fired.
Re: (Score:2)
*Exceptions being the obvious ones, illegal content, kiddy pron.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
illegal content
Oops.. That's pretty arbitrary, don't you think? Anything can be made illegal at the drop of a hat. Or has everybody forgotten already?
The only thing that is truly threatened by "toxic" content is mass media and the institutions dependent on its propaganda.
Re: Good (Score:2)
OY! You got a license for that joke?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
If you pick single clear examples, yeah, it's not arbitrary. Why would you think it would be? Here you go, draw the line:
1) John is like a pretzel with no salt.
2) John is ugly.
3) John is fugly.
4) John's mom wished she would have aborted him.
5) If John died, would anyone care?
6) Any day that John gets hurt is a good day.
7) I cheer on anyone who punches someone like John.
8) Would be nice if someone would go over and fuck John up.
9) If John does that again, I'm going to kick his ass.
10) I'm buying a beer for the first person to kick John in the nuts.
11) Anyone up for kicking John's ass?
12) Lets all meet at 10am tomorrow morning at John's house and teach him a thing or two.
13) The John beatdown party for tomorrow is on! 12 confirmed participants.
14) [image of gun] John, I'm coming for you.
Feel free to envision a vast spectrum for child porn as well, with differing amounts of clothes and levels of sexual innuendo through actual sex, with stick figures to uncanny valley 3D to photo-realistic 3D to real children.
If you don't think it's going to be arbitrary, I don't think you've thought about it hard enough. And you don't realize that most everyone is going to have a different line than you'll have.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Your comment is insightful, as modded. However, I'd answer by saying that everything in the real world is on a spectrum and unless you want to exist all the way on the end of the spectrum (which is often an argument to absurdity) then you have to draw a line somewhere. The line is going to be somewhat arbitrary and will somewhat conform to "community standards". If you don't like it then don't live in that community or stay and try to push the standards your way (not being an a-hole there, just realistic). The way to not change community standards is to insist on 100% purity and extremes in everything. Instead, push for realistic changes and push the line a little at a time -- that's how many good social changes have occurred. And for those firebrands out there who say they should have whatever they want, whenever they want -- the "community" can push back a lot harder than you can if provoked enough.
Re: (Score:3)
----------------------
Once you incite violence, you've crossed the line.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it is fine to ban extremely graphic content, including sex and violence, as you described.
I think it is not fine to ban ideas.
So yes, allow cult recruiting, mentally ill people posting, anorexia promotion. All of that. Yes. Absolutely.
Re: (Score:2)
A true believer in ... what?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes to all.
If you're worried about idiots seeing that and harming themselves or others, the problem is with the idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not related to capitalism. Many Marxists share the view I am espousing, in fact.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Beheading videos from the worldview that must not be named, of course, are fine.
I'll sit right here while you post evidence of this claim. You know, links to all those beheading videos currently on Youtube.
Re: "Toxic Videos" Please! (Score:3, Insightful)
Lol, it's always the "alt-right" isn't it? Because with the left, dissenting views are *always* welcome.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Alrighty then, so who do YOU think should run the world??
I'll do it.
Re: "Toxic Videos" Please! (Score:5, Insightful)
> The problem is they make money by showing us stuff the worst part of our nature likes, and they do this, because it hooks people.
Sensationalism gets people watching? Color me shocked! /sarcasm
The mainstream media and other "news" does the same stupid shit. Because, sadly, controversy sells. It is the same reason for the artificial manufactured drama in "Reality Shows".
Maybe part of the problem is that there is no "Good News" channel that focuses on positive, empowering people instead of the negative, bullshit ?
The bigger problem is YouTube censoring anyone who doesn't agree with their political agenda. This is a dangerous slippery slope.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that FOX News didn't have to act sensationalist relative to its counterparts but instead took a route of acting relatively meek and just reacting to the left, and this got them into the current state where they of all outlets are more trusted than past trusted left-leaning outlets, should instead of inviting scorn push you to do some introspective activities and turn on some light bulbs. But i guess stupid people do as stupid people keep doing.
Re: (Score:2)
One person's conspiracy could be the truth - see the Tuskegee Experiments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm watching an archery video chances are high there are many companies who would be willing to advertise. Second, there are people like me who pay $10/mth to not see ads. Surely the creators who make archery videos should get a portion of that money.
Demonitizing is pushing Alt-Tech. I can't wait until all my shows are on Bitchute and then
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's generally not good for business when you refer to your customers as "stupid people".
You assume that the people who log onto YouTube and watch videos are Google/Alphabet's actual customers? That's naïve and cute, but grossly incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
It's generally not good for business when you refer to your customers as "stupid people".
You assume that the people who log onto YouTube and watch videos are Google/Alphabet's actual customers? That's naïve and cute, but grossly incorrect.
A required component of any streaming service is having viewers. If you don't cater to them, then it doesn't matter who the "real" customers are because your business is dead, so let's stop trying to split hairs here. Ad space is worthless without viewership.
And to be clear, the "stupid people" I was referring to are the content creators, who are even closer to the traditional definition of customers.
Re: (Score:3)
One can be far right (small, limited government) and not be racist.
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't be Evil" went out the door on August 19, 2004.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Nice 'tube you have there. I hope you never lose your hosting, or your payment processor doesn't cut you off, or your domain doesn't get hijacked, because you know... you built your own. After all there's nothing on there we don't approve of, right?