|
edit: nvm, new page.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Quatches! Naked and Afraid of Ancient Aliens! A naked, disheveled and under-medicated Giorgio A. Tsoukalos must traverse the bowels of an Egyptian Pyramid and avoid getting punched out by irate Apollo mission veterans in a bid to prove that he has the greatest PSR score in television history! *Montage full of Cairo police chasing him around Giza trying to shoo him away from the pyramids, night vision shots of him squatting on the steps of the pyramid at night*  I'm so scared!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
7 Up soda presents a recipe for "easy white Kimchi" that is by no means just a cup and a half of soda poured over a salad. https://www.facebook.com/7UP/photos/a.431544761823.231036.174751071823/10154443414201824/?type=3&theater
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:You could basically replace any characters in any Discovery or History channel show with sasquatches and improve the show 1000%. Tell me you wouldn't watch a show about a couple of 'squatches going through old barns and garages looking for pieces of classic Americana.  Waffleman_ posted:Pawn Squatches. Would watch
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I hated myself too much to continue. Same except wrt everything.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Dunno if it counts but the whole Advertiser boycott of Youtube and the fallout from the creators now has YouTube putting a small banner above the skip button stating that ads help support the creator as if that is going to be enough to keep people from hitting the skip button.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Hey Fingercuffs posted:Dunno if it counts but the whole Advertiser boycott of Youtube and the fallout from the creators now has YouTube putting a small banner above the skip button stating that ads help support the creator as if that is going to be enough to keep people from hitting the skip button. What's the backstory here?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Hey Fingercuffs posted:Dunno if it counts but the whole Advertiser boycott of Youtube and the fallout from the creators now has YouTube putting a small banner above the skip button stating that ads help support the creator as if that is going to be enough to keep people from hitting the skip button. It might help a bit, people already disable ad block, subscribe, donate and even actively watch ads to earn Twitch bits to support creators they like, so suggesting that not skipping helps support their favourite creators could well work for a percentage of viewers.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:What's the backstory here? Youtubers cannot stop being racist and it's driving advertisers away.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:What's the backstory here? My understanding through the various creators that have commented on it. About a month ago a bunch of Advertisers pulled out of support of YouTube due to their ads playing on video's they didn't want to be related to. This caused a huge dip in some YouTube creators revenue because on top of the Advertisers pulling out on top of YouTube going hardcore on demonetization of any video with suspect titles and thumbnails without directly informing the creators. Also there are some people reporting that monetized videos are not having ads run on them so there has been a big creator push back and now to attempt to stop the bleeding a little bit YouTube has put a notification on the ads letting viewers know that the ads help support the creator right above the skip button. If I missed something or misrepresented the situation someone please correct me because it seems like this is a convoluted mess.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Hey Fingercuffs posted:YouTube going hardcore on demonetization of any video with suspect titles and thumbnails without directly informing the creators. If I recall, one of the bigger issues is that anything LGBT was considered "suspect," so a lot of videos talking about gender (in the non incendiary way) were also getting demonetized. Edit: VVV I didn't find anything wrong with your word choice. You're good 
GrandpaPants has a new favorite as of 20:19 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:If I recall, one of the bigger issues is that anything LGBT was considered "suspect," so a lot of videos talking about gender (in the non incendiary way) were also getting demonetized. Thank you for reminding me of that and I apologize for my poor word choice. Basically anything that anyone could possibly find offensive got demonetized. Edit:removed more poor word choice. Hey Fingercuffs has a new favorite as of 20:15 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Video views were not attributing to content correctly and it turned out Googles AdSafety program was a web of lies. Advertisers then en masse realized this was a great excuse to get the gently caress away from Google properties while their clients agreed with them and jumped ship. Google then claimed they were doing everything it can to fix the problem but still have issues and exposed others so trust has evaporated and lots of content creators who are less well known and not direct buys saw their revenue dry up. Basically nobody likes Google in the ad scene so any gently caress up is a moment to bolt with client approval and this was a huge dropped ball.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:What's the backstory here? The big kerfluffle that started the ball rolling was when it turned out Google was happily playing adverts over literal terrorist videos. We're talking stuff like BBC adverts being put on videos released by actual ISIS members encouraging people to murder anybody that isn't Muslim enough. It ties in to a bunch of other stuff going on; the tech media giants are taking a very hands off approach to policing their sites unless the law gets involved. So it's balls easy and quick to get copyrighted stuff taken down when a media giant raises a stink but videos encouraging literal murder, racism, homophobia, etc. are just kind of hanging around while YouTube goes "meh, whatever." It's incredibly easy to find the worst hate imaginable being spewed all over YouTube and it gets monetized pretty regularly so a bunch of advertisers reasonably don't want to be associated with that. It's bad enough that some European nations are actually looking at levying fines on the tech giants if they don't start actually policing the drat content. They've shown they only give a poo poo about money so they'll be all over copyright violations when a big media giant raises a stink like stink on poo poo. However a lot of their other policing is basically 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
It’s easier for a computer to find nearly identical pieces of media and police copyright than it is for a computer to discern content. It’s as simple as that. Google doesn’t want to hire an army to investigate suspect videos, and  FREE SPEECH gives them a cover rationale.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
There are several media companies that have content awareness systems so while easier to match 1:1 the difference isnt unsurmountable
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It’s easier for a computer to find nearly identical pieces of media and police copyright than it is for a computer to discern content. They don't even need an army. 20 people, have a threshold for number of reports relative to view count. You can usually tell in the first 5 minutes of a video if it's hate speech etc. Call it 8 videos an hour per person, kill a channel for two or more videos removed. 160 videos an hour should be plenty, it's not like they need to review every single thing uploaded.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
I always feel so much Schadenfreude when something goes wrong with youtube (or even internet) advertisement. Mostly because these are almost universally problems that were first spotted YEARS ago, but didn't become big enough holes in the intricate spiderweb of lies until now for the big money people to notice, because they kept getting paid regardless. I swear, the whole business is run like a ponzi scheme, and I've never heard a single advertising person successfully explain to me how having less than 0.001% of your effort get rewarded is seen as "successful". I'm so satisfied that this past year's run of ad-related troubles for youtube pretty much started with Pewdiepie being stupid with his popularity. Because he's probably the most blatant and glaring example of how mismanaged and scammy the whole advertising world is about the internet. Sure, he got more views than anyone else on the site, so I can see why people then turned around and made lots of advertising deals with him to earn him stupid levels of money, but they never stopped and looked at those numbers with any possible scrutiny. PDP's main audience watching his videos over and over again and propelling him to fame have been kids and teens. But he still gets the same generic Youtube ads all videos get. A. Kids don't have their own income sources normally, B. Kids aren't going to pay any attention to car insurance ads or be able to buy the hot new computer. At least on kid-aimed television they tend to have ads for stuff like toys and kid-aimed food that they'll bug their parents to get them. They aren't going to bug mommy to switch to progressive. But all that matters to advertisers is the numbers, not what they actually represent, and the fun bucks keep recirculating.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:They don't even need an army. 20 people, have a threshold for number of reports relative to view count. You can usually tell in the first 5 minutes of a video if it's hate speech etc. Call it 8 videos an hour per person, kill a channel for two or more videos removed. 160 videos an hour should be plenty, it's not like they need to review every single thing uploaded. I think you're vastly underestimating exactly how many videos get uploaded to YouTube.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I think you're vastly underestimating exactly how many videos get uploaded to YouTube. Google has all of the money. I'm pretty sure a couple dozen people working full time could do a real good job policing things. They couldn't watch every video or even respond to every suspicious video quickly but it'd be better than the current policy. The other side of that is that once you start policing something people are less likely to poo poo there. This is one of the reasons 4Chan turned into a such a disgusting cesspit. Their attitude of "never censor anything ever" meant that the worst of the worst, continually getting driven out of other places, kept landing there when nobody else would have them. Which drove out everybody else eventually. YouTube is becoming increasingly tainted due to a lack of policing.People generally follow the path of least resistance. If YouTube has like 50 people actually policing it and another site doesn't people will go to the other one most of the time.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Google has all of the money. I'm pretty sure a couple dozen people working full time could do a real good job policing things. They couldn't watch every video or even respond to every suspicious video quickly but it'd be better than the current 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, you really aren't comprehending the scale of the problem here.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, you really aren't comprehending the scale of the problem here. Brute-forcing it isn't the solution, because it's a social problem, not a technological one. You can track user cohorts through who they like and follow, just like on twitter. An account that only follows hate accounts is likely to be one too.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Brute-forcing it isn't the solution, because it's a social problem, not a technological one. You can track user cohorts through who they like and follow, just like on twitter. An account that only follows hate accounts is likely to be one too. If companies' "You are probably a hate account" system is as inaccurate as their "you will probably like this" system, it will be terrible.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Like, these are Trump-esque replies. "Just get some people to look at videos and flag them! Bing bong bing, so simple!" I assure you that if it were that easy, Google would have done it already.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:I swear, the whole business is run like a ponzi scheme, and I've never heard a single advertising person successfully explain to me how having less than 0.001% of your effort get rewarded is seen as "successful". Return on advertising in digital is based on last view, not direct click through. In fact, confusingly enough, clicks usually negatively correlate with how good an ad is at generating revenue.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Google could outsource content monitoring to Bangladesh and see a .02% percent decline in net revenue, but that doesn't seem to be on their radar. They don't even have to know English. Just memorize all the really bad words and forward those videos to the next tier for closer examination. I think companies like Facebook and Google are proud of the fact they offer little to no support for their 'free' services and don't really want to change that now.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
There's also Twitter, who is in the unique position of being able to contribute to the prevention of multiple wars by suspending one account and choosing not to.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Just any action at all would be a clear improvement.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Twitter should just enact Reddit's shadow ban and fill in replies to high profile users with markov bots.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:There's also Twitter, who is in the unique position of being able to contribute to the prevention of multiple wars by suspending one account and choosing not to. Twitter will straight up ban people for telling avowed neo nazis to gently caress off, then turn around and give the nazi a verified checkmark. Their problem is they're run by shitheads
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:People generally follow the path of least resistance. If YouTube has like 50 people actually policing it and another site doesn't people will go to the other one most of the time.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:What's the other site though? I know other video hosting sites exist, but they're not as useful, convenient, or popular, which means that YouTube has a huge automatic advantage that has to be overcome. If there was actual competition in the market then you'd be right, people would go with the one least likely to delete their content or ban them, but there just isn't that competition. You post to YouTube or you get a fraction of the viewers. Yeah, Reddit's at a real risk of losing users that way since anybody can make a forum, but Twitter and Youtube less so.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
Amazon/Twitch is making a play at video. They streamed a Bob Ross marathon last year.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, you really aren't comprehending the scale of the problem here. I specifically said they don't need to review everything, nor every minute of every video. It doesn't matter if you upload 10 hours of nyan cat unless someone reports your video for splicing hitler in the middle.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:I specifically said they don't need to review everything, nor every minute of every video. It doesn't matter if you upload 10 hours of nyan cat unless someone reports your video for splicing hitler in the middle. Just about everything that is even slightly controversial is going to get flagged by someone. You're still way underestimating the magnitude of the problem.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
People watching hate videos aren’t the kind of people who flag hate videos for offensive content. 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
Oh noooo
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Are they flirting
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
WhatTired Moritz posted:Are they flirting
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 07:44
|
|
