YouTube has a brilliant new policy
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
Recommended Videos
They already changed "Report Negative Content" to "Report inappropriate videos accurately" and "Help moderate community content" which is demonstrated by highlighting comments for some purpose to "Help moderate content in the YouTube Heroes community"
It doesn't help Youtube. We've seen behind the mask, all you have shown now is that you know this can and will be abused.
Nearly 220,000 dislikes to about 3,500 likes on the video last I checked.
It doesn't help Youtube. We've seen behind the mask, all you have shown now is that you know this can and will be abused.
Nearly 220,000 dislikes to about 3,500 likes on the video last I checked.
It's possible, but the responsibility falls on YouTube staff to make such a system work, so my expectations are low. In an ideal situation, YouTube could make it work with a robust screening system that presents reported videos to staff, clear rules to delineate what constitutes a violation, and an even handed approach to enforcement. A system for removing people that make too many erroneous reports would help too. Essentially, YouTube could use the reports in place of automated algorithms, and assign staff to review any sufficiently reported video before action is taken, making it so the public can't really abuse the system beyond spamming behind the scenes staff.Zontar said:
With youtubes current track record on automated copyright strikes and their current staff support record, I doubt any of the above will happen, but it's theoretically possible, it just requires clear policies and an active and engaging support staff holding the bulk of the power.
Didn't really get to comment as much as I wanted (only had about a minute before I had to leave). So I thought I'd come back and elaborate on my opinions.
I'm actually okay with the part about adding subtitles. To me that is a great idea. Especially if someone can add accurate subtitles to a few videos. Like TFS's Lord Slug Abridged movie. I've never been able to make out what Krillen says as he gets ***** slapped, and can't help but feel I'm missing a joke.
However, it seems pretty obvious that Youtube mentioned that first as a way to try to slip by the bit about flagging videos to earn points. And I have many problems with this. First, it will be abused to flag videos of people the "Heroes" just plain don't like. Yes, we can expect people from Amazing Atheist to Laci Green to get flagged by their haters. Not for actually making anything objectionable, but simply for making videos in the first place.
Second, by gamifying flagging, they encourage people to flag tons more videos. Not just videos from controversial voices, but also videos from anyone. Our own DudeistBelieve has a small channel and I can't help but feel people could flag his videos simply to earn points and level up. Thus turning these "Heroes" into bullies preying on much smaller channels. And don't think there won't be people flagging every video just to earn easy points. People abuse these systems all the time to level up as fast as possible.
Then we have the apparent ability to mass flag videos once you hit a certain level. I have no idea why anyone thought that was a good idea.
But you know what really gets me? And convinces me that this was not intended to be anything but a way to censor content creators. You don't earn points for liking videos or subscribing, or watching videos of people you have subscribed to, or embedding videos on other sites. Nothing that would make people more likely to do things to help content creators. One of the major ways to earn points is to flag and you gets tools to make that easier as you level.
You don't get any ability to help them. Like being able to boost the visibility of a video you like.
Oh, and you can apparently moderate comments, too. Yes, so get in an argument with someone and then punish them for disagreeing with you. No way that will be abused, either.
I saw a video that called this what it really is. Youtube Villains.
I'm actually okay with the part about adding subtitles. To me that is a great idea. Especially if someone can add accurate subtitles to a few videos. Like TFS's Lord Slug Abridged movie. I've never been able to make out what Krillen says as he gets ***** slapped, and can't help but feel I'm missing a joke.
However, it seems pretty obvious that Youtube mentioned that first as a way to try to slip by the bit about flagging videos to earn points. And I have many problems with this. First, it will be abused to flag videos of people the "Heroes" just plain don't like. Yes, we can expect people from Amazing Atheist to Laci Green to get flagged by their haters. Not for actually making anything objectionable, but simply for making videos in the first place.
Second, by gamifying flagging, they encourage people to flag tons more videos. Not just videos from controversial voices, but also videos from anyone. Our own DudeistBelieve has a small channel and I can't help but feel people could flag his videos simply to earn points and level up. Thus turning these "Heroes" into bullies preying on much smaller channels. And don't think there won't be people flagging every video just to earn easy points. People abuse these systems all the time to level up as fast as possible.
Then we have the apparent ability to mass flag videos once you hit a certain level. I have no idea why anyone thought that was a good idea.
But you know what really gets me? And convinces me that this was not intended to be anything but a way to censor content creators. You don't earn points for liking videos or subscribing, or watching videos of people you have subscribed to, or embedding videos on other sites. Nothing that would make people more likely to do things to help content creators. One of the major ways to earn points is to flag and you gets tools to make that easier as you level.
You don't get any ability to help them. Like being able to boost the visibility of a video you like.
Oh, and you can apparently moderate comments, too. Yes, so get in an argument with someone and then punish them for disagreeing with you. No way that will be abused, either.
I saw a video that called this what it really is. Youtube Villains.
Because of Youtube's history of moderation being disappointing at best, nearly, if not fully, criminal at worst. The flag system as it is still fucks over content creators even if it's completely fair game. SWF just got out of their latest SAOAbridged bullshit after nearly two weeks of being fucked around by the automated system in place.Kina said:
Also you've been on the internet right? The only people that have the time to meaningfully contribute and want to do this are NOT the people you want involved in it.
Because Robocop 4 was somehow taken as inspiration instead of the satire of "FUCK NO DON'T DO THIS YOU MORONS" series it was made out to be. Also Youtube, and Google in particular, is full of spineless little shits that will throw each other under the bus if it got them a shinier beanbag, so they're automatically out when it comes to making their product better.Mister K said:
With great power comes great responsibility and to be quite honest a lot of the people I see on Youtube comments sections are hardly what I'd call "responsible". Without these increased moderation abilities you can already see a trend of users inundating smaller channels with dislikes and harassment for the heinous crime of disagreeing with a more popular Youtuber, all this is gonna do is give them more power. Unless these moderators are also getting moderated, then I just question what the whole point is.
I'm waiting for a FineBros-esque "apology" any day now.
I'm waiting for a FineBros-esque "apology" any day now.
YouTube wants everything controversial or "negative" off of their platform. That's what their recent actions have shown. They tried to quietly take away revenue from such content, but that didn't work. Then they tried to tell content creators that they were taking their revenue and why(not being advertiser friendly) but that didn't work. Now they are introducing a system that seems to be deliberately designed to be abused with the most likely victims will be those that create political, polarizing, negative, or otherwise controversial content. It's a system where anyone willing to play shouldn't be allowed to win.
YouTube is one of the most valuable and important websites on the internet but it makes google little to no revenue. Best case scenario they want to purge the site of any content that makes advertisers reluctant to buy ads on the site so that the the value of ads will go up and the site will start to generate more revenue. Worst case scenario enters conspiracy territory.
YouTube is one of the most valuable and important websites on the internet but it makes google little to no revenue. Best case scenario they want to purge the site of any content that makes advertisers reluctant to buy ads on the site so that the the value of ads will go up and the site will start to generate more revenue. Worst case scenario enters conspiracy territory.
Responsibility. In the hands of youtube users.
Oh Good Lord the inmates are going to be running the asylum.
Oh Good Lord the inmates are going to be running the asylum.
Apparently even the part most people like, providing an incentive to add subtitles and captions, could also be something underhanded and scummy because it helps their automated bots search the content of a video more easily rather than just by the titles and tags that were getting content demonetized automatically for containing certain keywords.
It's Google, folks. You need to realize that, as far as Google is concerned, there are two groups of people: to the first group, it doesn't matter what Google does, because they're not going to stop using it. To the second group, it doesn't matter what Google does, because they've already stopped using it. Are you (yes, YOU) going to give them incentive to get their act together? Of course not. Neither am I; the schadenfreude's dried up, and shaking your head sadly isn't much fun. So it'll continue.
Complaining (here or to them) may be viscerally satisfying, but you need to understand that it's not going to actually do anything.
Complaining (here or to them) may be viscerally satisfying, but you need to understand that it's not going to actually do anything.
So this is gonna get me hate, but I signed up to be part of it. But please hear me out. I've seen full films on Youtube not, spam comments (click here for $500 a day sitting in your house). This is the stuff I WILL flag. Plus I'm thinking if I can contact YouTube in case if someone goes on another copyright binge like Daddy Derek or Tommy Wiseau. Sort of like an inside man. Be a good example of what a YTH should be.
Are the pitchforks and torches down yet?
Are the pitchforks and torches down yet?
Bare in mind the nature of the movies and animation that you find. There are channels that post ancient cartoons, in which there are no other manner on which one could see them if not for youtube. I would hate for the next generation to not be able to experience Cat City or Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night because they don't have a rare vhs. YouTube for better or worse stands as a museum as much as a hive of scum and villainy.RaikuFA said:
I'm talking more like someone uploading Turner and Hooch or The Matrix, films that are readily available at Walmart for $5. I also agree that YouTube should also be a preservation site as well.Armadox said:
AndI plan to also get rid of those streams of random episodes of Family Guy and South Park.
That's perfectly fine to be honest. I assume people's concern, including my own, would be a Digital Homicide situation of if someone criticises your content, you flag the reviewer. You are genuine, that's great. Others may go insane with power.RaikuFA said: