Culture Youtube gonna be tougher with content control, working with organizations such as ADL - Pepe is gonna be banned.

https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/08/an-update-on-our-commitment-to-fight.html

A little over a month ago, we told you about the four new steps we’re taking to combat terrorist content on YouTube: better detection and faster removal driven by machine learning, more experts to alert us to content that needs review, tougher standards for videos that are controversial but do not violate our policies, and more work in the counter-terrorism space.

We wanted to give you an update on these commitments:

Better detection and faster removal driven by machine learning: We’ve always used a mix of technology and human review to address the ever-changing challenges around controversial content on YouTube. We recently began developing and implementing cutting-edge machine learning technology designed to help us identify and remove violent extremism and terrorism-related content in a scalable way. We have started rolling out these tools and we are already seeing some positive progress:

• Speed and efficiency: Our machine learning systems are faster and more effective than ever before. Over 75 percent of the videos we've removed for violent extremism over the past month were taken down before receiving a single human flag.
• Accuracy: The accuracy of our systems has improved dramatically due to our machine learning technology. While these tools aren’t perfect, and aren’t right for every setting, in many cases our systems have proven more accurate than humans at flagging videos that need to be removed.
• Scale: With over 400 hours of content uploaded to YouTube every minute, finding and taking action on violent extremist content poses a significant challenge. But over the past month, our initial use of machine learning has more than doubled both the number of videos we've removed for violent extremism, as well as the rate at which we’ve taken this kind of content down.

We are encouraged by these improvements, and will continue to develop our technology in order to make even more progress. We are also hiring more people to help review and enforce our policies, and will continue to invest in technical resources to keep pace with these issues and address them responsibly.

More experts: Of course, our systems are only as good as the the data they’re based on. Over the past weeks, we have begun working with more than 15 additional expert NGOs and institutions through our Trusted Flagger program, including the Anti-Defamation League, the No Hate Speech Movement, and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue. These organizations bring expert knowledge of complex issues like hate speech, radicalization, and terrorism that will help us better identify content that is being used to radicalize and recruit extremists. We will also regularly consult these experts as we update our policies to reflect new trends. And we’ll continue to add more organizations to our network of advisors over time.

Tougher standards: We’ll soon be applying tougher treatment to videos that aren’t illegal but have been flagged by users as potential violations of our policies on hate speech and violent extremism. If we find that these videos don’t violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes. We’ll begin to roll this new treatment out to videos on desktop versions of YouTube in the coming weeks, and will bring it to mobile experiences soon thereafter. These new approaches entail significant new internal tools and processes, and will take time to fully implement.

Early intervention and expanding counter-extremism work: We’ve started rolling out features from Jigsaw’s Redirect Method to YouTube. When people search for sensitive keywords on YouTube, they will be redirected towards a playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages. We also continue to amplify YouTube voices speaking out against hate and radicalization through our YouTube Creators for Change program. Just last week, the U.K. chapter of Creators for Change, Internet Citizens, hosted a two-day workshop for 13-18 year-olds to help them find a positive sense of belonging online and learn skills on how to participate safely and responsibly on the internet. We also pledged to expand the program’s reach to 20,000 more teens across the U.K.

And over the weekend, we hosted our latest Creators for Change workshop in Bandung, Indonesia, where creators teamed up with Indonesia’s Maarif Institute to teach young people about the importance of diversity, pluralism, and tolerance.

Altogether, we have taken significant steps over the last month in our fight against online terrorism. But this is not the end. We know there is always more work to be done. With the help of new machine learning technology, deep partnerships, ongoing collaborations with other companies through the Global Internet Forum, and our vigilant community we are confident we can continue to make progress against this ever-changing threat. We look forward to sharing more with you in the months ahead.

The YouTube Team

This gonna be gud.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

Unless there's an alternative that everyone can agree on, I can't foresee the skeptic community (For all their flaws, they're a bastion of free speech) or alternative media being all on one site together.

So maybe things go backward a little bit, and everyone has their own independent website/blog? That's how it used to be. Everything being connected on facebook and twitter and youtube allows those companies to exert real pressure, but 20 years ago we all found maddox and realultimatepower and and stickdeath and rotten.com through word of mouth or just searching on our own and things worked out fine. People got big by putting out content that appealed across the board, not by meeting a progressive committee's morality standards.

 

[Zarkov]

Pepe pictures are now officially terrorist content.

 

[AnOminous]

Net neutrality has to do with the regulation of ISPs as common carriers, not the actual customers of those ISPs such as YouTube.

YouTube is basically Google, and Google owns monstrous amounts of infrastructure itself. Nobody is going to discriminate against Google whether or not net neutrality is enforced by the FCC or just exists de facto, for the reason that it's Google. So I suppose net neutrality isn't a completely apposite example when the actor is Google. However, Internet businesses in general have enjoyed a privileged legal status somewhat akin to that of utilities, although they are not legally common carriers in the strict sense of the term.

This privileged legal status, though, including things like the near immunity under the CDA for content they carry, becomes rather problematic when they get directly into the business of regulating speech. Essentially, they already get to speak with a stack of Marshall amps, while their average customer gets to borrow a paper megaphone. Now, they get to take away even that paper megaphone.

Things will never be the same after this. YouTube will end up being just another Jewish Golem pumping out shit for normies that will be bland and unfunny.

It's been that for years. There's something new about this, though. While YT has consistently pimped stuff and shot it up in search rankings based on their own preferences, you've usually been able to find what you want regardless. The new policy appears to be just getting rid of a bunch of shit.

I think it's optimistic to think this will be any kind of breaking point, although one hopes at some point that competing with YouTube with some free speech alternative (that doesn't just turn into a bunch of neo-Nazi spastics like voat) becomes economically viable.

 

[TowinKarz]

If it means I no longer get "you may also like" suggestions for videos that are ramblings about how chemtrails are real..... then I'm all for it.

 

[Trilby]

This isn't to say "just give up," but realize this isn't shocking that the powers-that-be are once again trying to stifle free thought in entertainment and popular media. Time to head back to the underground where we can actually make some difference.

The underground is ALWAYS a safe place for what you want in them. That's what got us through the 60's and 70's.

So maybe things go backward a little bit, and everyone has their own independent website/blog? That's how it used to be. Everything being connected on facebook and twitter and youtube allows those companies to exert real pressure, but 20 years ago we all found maddox and realultimatepower and and stickdeath and rotten.com through word of mouth or just searching on our own and things worked out fine. People got big by putting out content that appealed across the board, not by meeting a progressive committee's morality standards.

I miss those days. The internet was such a wild beast at the time and everyone could try to do something there without feeling like they needed the commercial or corporate backing to mamke it work.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

I miss those days. The internet was such a wild beast at the time and everyone could try to do something there without feeling like they needed the commercial or corporate backing to mamke it work

You'd think all these anti-corporate anti-fascist anti-authority tools would prefer the old wild west style of doing things where succeeding didn't require sucking a board of directors' collective cock, not enlist in the suits' infantry themselves.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

You'd think all these anti-corporate anti-fascist anti-authority tools would prefer the old wild west style of doing things where succeeding didn't require sucking a board of directors' collective cock, not enlist in the suits' infantry themselves.

You'd think so, but time is a funny thing- people come complacent with the changes, hence the complaining from left, right and center over Google's business decisions. They don't want things to change drastically. They don't want to go back to those old days, yet they also don't want Google to fuck things over further than they already have. They want the happy medium of being able to find what they want, and say/do what they want.

It's obvious Google wouldn't listen to them. But with the backlash they've been receiving, we'll just have to wait and see how bad these changes will get in the long run.

 

[Jaimas]

You'd think so, but time is a funny thing- people come complacent with the changes, hence the complaining from left, right and center over Google's business decisions. They don't want things to change drastically. They don't want to go back to those old days, yet they also don't want Google to fuck things over further than they already have. They want the happy medium of being able to find what they want, and say/do what they want.

It's obvious Google wouldn't listen to them. But with the backlash they've been receiving, we'll just have to wait and see how bad these changes will get in the long run.

Going by blastback and the opportunity this would have to blow up in their faces, I would not be surprised if this turned out to be a whole lot of hand-wringing and little more. Whether the prospect of an FEC probe, the potential to violate FTC guidelines, the fact that this would make them liable not only in cases of copyright infringement, but technically if they allowed false DMCAs to happen (Alex Mauer comes to mind), and the fact that the most litigious sharks in the pond would leap at the chance to get a bite on Google's coffers, odds are good that this is going to peter out similar to Youtube Heroes.

Which brings me to another interesting sidenote: Google's run Youtube at a loss for quite a while. But the thing is, Google's run it as a loss leader, as in they knowingly run it at a loss because the compound effect of it and the utility it has and the potential to earn more than they lose in the process. A common sobriquet I've seen in this thread is that Google will happily keep Youtube running no matter how not-profitable, but that ignores the reality of the situation - that there is a fucking world of difference between running at a slight loss but still ostensibly benefitting, and running at a fucking massive loss and entering a Twitter-esque decaying orbit. If they absolutely, positively fuck up Youtube to the degree hinted at, Youtube will bleed money hard and the economic blastback alone will, ultimately, make this problem ultimately self-correcting.

Just my 2 Autismbux.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

Going by blastback and the opportunity this would have to blow up in their faces, I would not be surprised if this turned out to be a whole lot of hand-wringing and little more. Whether the prospect of an FEC probe, the potential to violate FTC guidelines, the fact that this would make them liable not only in cases of copyright infringement, but technically if they allowed false DMCAs to happen (Alex Mauer comes to mind), and the fact that the most litigious sharks in the pond would leap at the chance to get a bite on Google's coffers, odds are good that this is going to peter out similar to Youtube Heroes.

It's possible, the issue is that Google's always accepted false DMCAs because the AI running the site can't seem to distinguish between people who have a legitimate problem, trolls trying to get a rise out of the uploader or dumbasses who just want the video removed to fuck over everyone.

Now if that's Google's plan, it'll just give everyone the opportunity to delete any and all videos they find "offensive". Even if it does put some of the shitter or notorious channels (like the Spider-Elsa ones) out of their misery. Innocent channels and videos could easilly get affected too. Which is why they should have humans to verify these things. But they don't. And that's one of YouTube's biggest failings and why everyone, even the big content providers, hate it. There's no one helming the wheel, it's all autopilot. And its been malfunctioning for years.

 

[Feline Darkmage]

Make The Internet a Wild West Again

 

[Transvaalan]

The good thing is that at least a lot of youtubers, including Pewdiepie (!) are quite pissed about the direction the website is taking.

So when will their be a Netflix/Hulu version of Youtube? Seems like making it a paid service and such would work around much of this.

 

[Kazami Yuuka]

So when will their be a Netflix/Hulu version of Youtube? Seems like making it a paid service and such would work around much of this.

Youtube Red, and the aptly named Youtube TV (I believe TV is different than Red) is basically Google's attempt at this. However, as mentioned above (YT being a loss leader), there will always be a free side to Youtube simply to keep people on Youtube rather than moving to Vimeo or Vidme.

 

[CowReserach Inc.]

Make The Internet a Wild West Again

Are we all moving to the deep web?

 

[Feline Darkmage]

Are we all moving to the deep web?

Hopefully it doesn't get that bad. I don't want fun forced down off the surface.

 

[Broseph Stalin]

Are we all moving to the deep web?

I just hope we go innawoods (Independent websites, blogs, etc.) rather than go unnaground (Deep web, dark net, TOR).

 

[Absolutego]

Going by blastback and the opportunity this would have to blow up in their faces, I would not be surprised if this turned out to be a whole lot of hand-wringing and little more. Whether the prospect of an FEC probe, the potential to violate FTC guidelines, the fact that this would make them liable not only in cases of copyright infringement, but technically if they allowed false DMCAs to happen (Alex Mauer comes to mind), and the fact that the most litigious sharks in the pond would leap at the chance to get a bite on Google's coffers, odds are good that this is going to peter out similar to Youtube Heroes.

Which brings me to another interesting sidenote: Google's run Youtube at a loss for quite a while. But the thing is, Google's run it as a loss leader, as in they knowingly run it at a loss because the compound effect of it and the utility it has and the potential to earn more than they lose in the process. A common sobriquet I've seen in this thread is that Google will happily keep Youtube running no matter how not-profitable, but that ignores the reality of the situation - that there is a fucking world of difference between running at a slight loss but still ostensibly benefitting, and running at a fucking massive loss and entering a Twitter-esque decaying orbit. If they absolutely, positively fuck up Youtube to the degree hinted at, Youtube will bleed money hard and the economic blastback alone will, ultimately, make this problem ultimately self-correcting.

Just my 2 Autismbux.

YouTube is so ubiquitous that I bet if they start making controversial content undiscoverable creators will just start trading direct links around instead in lieu of jumping ship wholesale to a different platform. The hit to their viewership statistics is going to be minimal, political stuff is a small part of the overall Youtube space.

 

[Chaos Theorist]

Considering that such politically controversial content is a small part of Youtube in relation to stuff such as Let's Plays or Movie and Game review channels, its no wonder the Big G wants them off their platform if they make the big advertisers worried that the advertisements for Coca-Cola are running on videos about how Islam is a shitty religion or how third wave feminists are self serving narcissists only wanting to advance the rights of women over men instead of a Funko Pop figure unboxing video or a Lets Play video of the latest triple AA shitsack game. Youtube is a business after all and the lack of funds coming through the ads ultimately hurts the entire platform, I wonder how long before the non-politically charged video creators ask for the political videos to be kicked off so it doesnt hurt their bottom line.
However this recent move from Youtube isn't solely motivated by money but as much as the regressive leftists slow push of inserting their ideology into tech companies and wanting anyone who disagrees with their world views to be removed and censored ("wow u r such a transphobic bigot if you have hesistations about giving powerful mind altering hormones to young children and teenagers! get out of here with your neuroplasticity and brain chemistry") even to the point of doxxing individuals and launching harassment campaigns. I mean Youtube isnt going to remove the real cancerous leftist Youtubers like the Young Turks or Jason Unruhe (https://www.youtube.com/user/MaoistRebelNews2) from spreading their poisonous agendas from infecting the minds of people are they? It would be fine if Youtube just did a blanket ban on any form of extremist politics from appearing on Youtube but they wont. Hell maybe Youtube should have a think about its priorities with the extreme ISIS beheadings and softcore porn fetish videos or the actual Simpsons 24/7 livestreams all over the place than Sargon making another video whinging about feminists for thirty minutes. This is a politically and financial decision by Youtube and one that will backfire in the long term as Youtube no longer becomes the cool place to watch videos for the prime age bracket of advertisers 18 to 40 year old men

Start a countdown clock for a real alternative like Youtube to arise or a big money investor to start pumping money into Vidme or Minds and/or Youtube starts to "forget" about this policy due to viewers leaving

 

[Chaos Theorist]

YouTube is so ubiquitous that I bet if they start making controversial content undiscoverable creators will just start trading direct links around instead in lieu of jumping ship wholesale to a different platform. The hit to their viewership statistics is going to be minimal, political stuff is a small part of the overall Youtube space.

I remember some review shows had to do this due to the way the YT content ID system works

 

[frozenrunner]

I hear from a lot of youtubers that ad revenue across the board is just dropping like a rock, regardless. People will stop uploading to youtube every week if it stops earning them money. I don't think Google realizes that they won't get the same amount of dedicated video creators putting out kwality kontent every week if they don't get paid to do it.

"Sir, the advertisers have finally figured out internet advertising doesn't work. What should we do?"

"Start pulling down any content that's remotely offensive to anyone. That should minimize our advertiser loses. YouTube Red subscriptions should help take care of the rest."

"But sir... won't onerous content restrictions on top of falling ad revenue make it even less attractive for users to upload their videos to our platform?"

"Exactly! It's a perfect plan!"

 

[Bob Page]

"Exactly! It's a perfect plan!"

"Ummm... I'd like to offer a counterpoint."
*Pushes play on boombox*