They sure as hell can get their shit together around turning profits.Diluted Dante wrote:YouTube can't get their shit together on anything. The hopes of them actually tackling this are slim to none and slim just left town.
Yossarian wrote:The Sandy Hook stuff is insane. Grieving parents being harassed by people who think that they’re lying about their children being murdered. Society shouldn’t be okay with this sort of thing.
That's the thing. It's all 'something should be done' but no real ideas. There's 300 hours of video uploaded to Youtube every minute. Even if they can check all that manually (and they might be able to, who knows) what are they then checking for? What if I go on youtube precisely to watch conspiracy videos? They can probably start by making sure any promoted videos have been checked in some way but its still going to be on there. Then some other social network is going to be the place where people post links to the stuff.Yossarian wrote:Find a way to be a bit more responsible about what is being shared and promoted through its site. The big tech companies are very good at monetising this type of thing and absolving themselves of responsibility for anything that their platforms are used for, but there are consequences to this type of stuff being widely shared and available. I’m not saying it’s easy, but it’s not like Google are short of a bob or two to chuck at finding solutions.
WorKid wrote:Yossarian wrote:The Sandy Hook stuff is insane. Grieving parents being harassed by people who think that they’re lying about their children being murdered. Society shouldn’t be okay with this sort of thing.
Absolutely agree. But: I watched a video on YouTube and they showed me another video on the same topic oh my how dare they...
Come on.
They should save their outrage for the content creators not the host platform.
Yossarian wrote:They sure as hell can get their shit together around turning profits.Diluted Dante wrote:YouTube can't get their shit together on anything. The hopes of them actually tackling this are slim to none and slim just left town.
trippy wrote:Aye, what can you do when such a vast amount of content is uploaded?
I've not watched the videos but while I'm sure they're reprehensible there's something to be said for them being out in the open. At least through comments and view counts you can find out how prevelant these people are and what they think, even if that's not always a pleasant thing. What use is an echo chamber, that's what gave us Brexit, Trump and One Direction.
poprock wrote:I really don’t know what the answer is with this stuff. It’s a philosophical argument, not a business one, or legal one. If the Internet is a series of tubes, these companies are the valves information flows through. Deciding whether the valves should have any moral or ethical judgement is beyond me. The utopian ideal is where society self-filters – where the crap doesn’t succeed simply because nobody wants to see it. Remove demand and supply becomes moot. That has to be the ideal because any effort to censor can very quickly be politicised, monetised, or both. Corruption inevitably sets in.
Yossarian wrote:Tell that to the Sandy Hook parents who had to move house after being doxxed. Putting these videos in the open didn’t help them much.trippy wrote:Aye, what can you do when such a vast amount of content is uploaded? I've not watched the videos but while I'm sure they're reprehensible there's something to be said for them being out in the open. At least through comments and view counts you can find out how prevelant these people are and what they think, even if that's not always a pleasant thing. What use is an echo chamber, that's what gave us Brexit, Trump and One Direction.
acemuzzy wrote:Isn't there an extrapolation beyond what yoss is asking for here, that leads to political censorship etc. Feels like a slippery slope, as well as technologically difficult (not quite the same as people mocking Rudd for saying "we want us (and only us) to be able to decrypt all communication", but not a million miles off).
Yossarian wrote:Removing algorithms from suggesting content would be a start. Perhaps some sort of validation system for trusted sources? As I say, it’s not an easy thing to deal with, but I’m not sure throwing our hands up in the air and saying “that’s the way it is” is much of a response. Also, I would fully expect Google to be employing people who will be much better at working out what’s possible than us on a forum if they really wanted to deal with it. The fact that we can’t work out good ways to do this doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Diluted Dante wrote:Yossarian wrote:Removing algorithms from suggesting content would be a start. Perhaps some sort of validation system for trusted sources? As I say, it’s not an easy thing to deal with, but I’m not sure throwing our hands up in the air and saying “that’s the way it is” is much of a response. Also, I would fully expect Google to be employing people who will be much better at working out what’s possible than us on a forum if they really wanted to deal with it. The fact that we can’t work out good ways to do this doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Employing people to solve a problem is an anathema to Google, especially if they can employ a crap algorithm instead.
trippy wrote:It's fucking amazing, Peppa Pig streaming 24/7.
Unlikely wrote:This had better not be fake news.It's fucking amazing, Peppa Pig streaming 24/7.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!