General > General Technical Chat
Youtube Targetting Cryptocurrency Channels?
<< < (15/22) > >>
Syntax Error:
Guys, that's just too much weird science. No wonder there's so few women in engineering.

@EEVBlog : In Europe, is Google/YouTube a tech platform or an unregulated publisher, is a big debate. (Especially for regulators who grandstand in front of their own committees). The platform model certainly worked when YouTube was kids posting VGA quality cat videos or being America's idiot of the week on a skateboard; but with millions of hours of HD content and an infrastructure to insure legal compliance (moderation), is it still a platform for free speech? YouTube is a de facto BROADCASTER. They store content from producers, broadcast innumerable channels across multiple territories, then sell metrics and airtime to advertisers. This generates income for content producers who make more content for more revenue. YouTube effectively commissions production by offering a monetization path. So for unregulated publisher read unregulated broadcaster. It will be interesting to hear their explanation why their crypto crackdown turned into such a clusterf*k? Publish and be damned.

@legacy : are they saying her content is dangerous, or she is dangerous? A valid observation or a defamatory statement from a corporation that's too big to sue?
legacy:

--- Quote from: Syntax Error on December 27, 2019, 03:32:50 pm ---@legacy : are they saying her content is dangerous, or she is dangerous? A valid observation or a defamatory statement from a corporation that's too big to sue?

--- End quote ---

my humor for the word "dangerous content", like if having a red-polarization could make a video "dangerous", etc. When it's perceived this way, it's clearly a bug in the AI.

She is not dangerous, and her videos are not dangerous. She is simply talking about movies, and she is a degree in film-criticism, but Youtube has several times demonetized (= hasn't paid for) any visualization of some of her videos.  Why does it happen? Because for the algorithm (aka the artificial intelligence) there are non-conformities probably due to her visual format.

It can be fixed,  and she can for sure unlock the pending payment, but I think she has to manually contact some human being in the YT team to sort it out.
Syntax Error:

--- Quote from: legacy on December 27, 2019, 04:37:34 pm ---my humor for the word "dangerous content", like if having a red-polarization could make a video "dangerous", etc. When it's perceived this way, it's clearly a bug in the AI.
--- End quote ---

YouTube is NOT a publisher, but withholds payments to a content creator for violations? Sounds rather like the behaviour of a publisher to me. As for deciding if red is the new dead, it's actually a building of messed-in-the-head college kids who are forced to watch everything the A.I. system flags up. Maybe the guy who developed this sacred A.I. algorithm had previoulsy coded flight control systems at Boeing in South Carolina?
magic:

--- Quote from: NiHaoMike on December 27, 2019, 01:41:26 pm ---Also, some entertainment companies are getting away with that sort of content, which individual content creators aren't too happy about:

--- End quote ---
It's not how she dresses or commercial vs individual, but the fact that unlike the others her sole purpose appears to be getting men off.
You know, there are other sites for that kind of shows :P
SiliconWizard:

--- Quote from: Syntax Error on December 27, 2019, 05:24:31 pm ---
--- Quote from: legacy on December 27, 2019, 04:37:34 pm ---my humor for the word "dangerous content", like if having a red-polarization could make a video "dangerous", etc. When it's perceived this way, it's clearly a bug in the AI.
--- End quote ---

YouTube is NOT a publisher, but withholds payments to a content creator for violations? Sounds rather like the behaviour of a publisher to me.

--- End quote ---

Yeah, this point is very tricky, and a real mess.

The mere fact that Youtube can decide which content can stay on the "platform" and which can't makes it have prerogatives of a publisher. The fact it can withhold payments as well. As long as it has a say in the contents themselves, it's a publisher IMO. But they are probably working around that, at least for the pure censoring. They just say videos are censored when they are against the law. That in itself doesn't make them publishers, but just respecting laws... as to demonetizing, I don't know which category it falls in... they are probably just following their customers' wishes (the companies that pay for advertising). This doesn't make them publishers per se, but some sort of agent between the companies and the content creators.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod