An computer can recognise a flange, it struggles with semantic understanding of a video overstepping a non-defined ethical line on a current affairs topic.Kow wrote:You tube do pretty well at filtering out porn, despite the fact that people are almost definitely trying to upload it constantly. Can't be too hard to apply their filters to other subjects.
trippy wrote:The only reason I had a second child is because the first one no longer liked Peppa Pig.
monkey wrote:An computer can recognise a flange, it struggles with semantic understanding of a video overstepping a non-defined ethical line on a current affairs topic.Kow wrote:You tube do pretty well at filtering out porn, despite the fact that people are almost definitely trying to upload it constantly. Can't be too hard to apply their filters to other subjects.
I’m sure it can be done, even manually. They need 18,000 hours of video checked per hour. There doesn’t seem to be any reason why that can’t be some micropayment thing that they can outsource. The thing for me is what they’re supposed to be checking for. The Guardian is outraged about some conspiracy vid, others won’t be.Kow wrote:monkey wrote:An computer can recognise a flange, it struggles with semantic understanding of a video overstepping a non-defined ethical line on a current affairs topic.Kow wrote:You tube do pretty well at filtering out porn, despite the fact that people are almost definitely trying to upload it constantly. Can't be too hard to apply their filters to other subjects.
I'd imagine they filter out a lot of other stuff too. If they made an effort they could easily clamp down on fake bullshit. Anyway, they don't have to ban it, just not promote it. If you have an algorithm to promote it then it can't be too hard to get it to do the opposite.
trippy wrote:Except what he said there. Hey Duggee is alright but Peppa Pig is God.
monkey wrote:I’d just go for trusted outlets (whatever that means) getting some special logo on their vids that means it isn’t all just made up. If it’s not on there, assume it’s not going to be factual. That’s not perfect either though.
Yeah and given the state of (especially) US news networks, it's not like they're a gold standard of impartial accuracy.trippy wrote:Especially for the conspiracy nuts.monkey wrote:I’d just go for trusted outlets (whatever that means) getting some special logo on their vids that means it isn’t all just made up. If it’s not on there, assume it’s not going to be factual. That’s not perfect either though.
Yossarian wrote:There have always been lies and exaggerations but things have clearly shifted now owing to the growth of hyper-partisan media outlets.
LarryDavid wrote:Alternatively, people could apply critical thinking and judge for themselves whether what they're reading and watching is plausible.
Maybe.Well, yeah. What’s really happening here, in recent times, is that we’re seeing clearly how numb and stupid 80% of people can really be. And then telling those dullards how important it is to vote and make their opinions heard.
LarryDavid wrote:It's weird that the number-1 voice behind the fake news concept is Donald Trump …
Yossarian wrote:There’s partisan views of facts and then there are places which reject facts in order to push their own partisan agendas. ‘Pizzagate’ would never have gained any traction in the public consciousness 20 years ago, now we all know what it refers to and someone started shooting up a pizza restaurant because of it.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!