YouTube to limit ads for creators whose videos receive 'inappropriate comments'(twitter.com)
twitter.com
YouTube to limit ads for creators whose videos receive 'inappropriate comments'
https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1098756348626403328
18 comments
if (innapropriate_comment_ratio < 10% && first_innapropriate_comment.created_at < 14.days_ago)
punish_creator
endGood thing 4chan does not understand algorithms and has never targeted algorithms as a coordinated campaign.
Doesn't seem much different than when people would form "dislike mobs" or spam "flag inappropriate content" (or claim copyright...). Remember that the video create can always disable comments or lock them for moderation, etc, so they actually would have more control than these other situations too.
It's a new attack vector, sure, but users could already attack broadcasters in this way, so that hasn't really changed.
It's a new attack vector, sure, but users could already attack broadcasters in this way, so that hasn't really changed.
Honestly, it is annoying to see essentially advertisers pushing others around. Moreover, only an idiot would associate your product with content on a site from user generated content.
I consider ads a form a propaganda because they are trying to influence your behavior.
I consider ads a form a propaganda because they are trying to influence your behavior.
So what's an inappropriate comment?
I'm guessing, like everything else YouTube, that comments will silently get flagged as inappropriate, and there won't actually be any rhyme, reason, or written policy guiding what is inappropriate.
I'm guessing, like everything else YouTube, that comments will silently get flagged as inappropriate, and there won't actually be any rhyme, reason, or written policy guiding what is inappropriate.
That's crazy... Seeing how many comments a video sometimes can get. I don't see how someone could go through all their comments for some videos, and it also means they would have to keep track of this for every video posted...
It will obviously be automated. Which means more false positive like for content id.
I mean someone running their own channel. having to moderate the comment sections to such a degree.
However, if google automates this why not just delete the comments and leave the person/s video alone...
However, if google automates this why not just delete the comments and leave the person/s video alone...
They don't really care about the comments. They are using them as a metric to identify suspicious videos.
Youtube just needs to increase the barriers before a channel can be monetised. Then, with a smaller pool of channels, they need better human review to prevent exactly things like this from happening.
If they are worried about the costs of a lot of non-monetised videos, just limit non-partner channel quality to 720p30, until the channel is made partner or coughs up something like $100.
Then, they need to allow micro-pledges in addition to likes. I would happily buy a pack of 100 pledges for $10 (ie. one pledge = 10c) and tip that towards the videos that I've really liked. Youtube could take their cut but it would represent a great extra revenue stream for content creators, and the number of pledges made public.
If they are worried about the costs of a lot of non-monetised videos, just limit non-partner channel quality to 720p30, until the channel is made partner or coughs up something like $100.
Then, they need to allow micro-pledges in addition to likes. I would happily buy a pack of 100 pledges for $10 (ie. one pledge = 10c) and tip that towards the videos that I've really liked. Youtube could take their cut but it would represent a great extra revenue stream for content creators, and the number of pledges made public.
> Then, they need to allow micro-pledges in addition to likes. I would happily buy a pack of 100 pledges for $10 (ie. one pledge = 10c) and tip that towards the videos that I've really liked.
This is the right way to support creators, one that doesn't introduce all the messed up incentives generated by ad-based content monetization.
But it won't work, for the same reason it never has. People associate online content with "free". Getting them to pull out a card is close to impossible. This is doubly so when you consider that it's mostly kids and teens spending hours watching these videos.
Most adults who can pay their way aren't watching toy unboxings or some influencer's 'daily vlog'. Kids and adults alike also are unlikely to adjust to a system where they need to remember to pledge or tip. They are watching tens of videos per day, how would they make that decision?
This is the right way to support creators, one that doesn't introduce all the messed up incentives generated by ad-based content monetization.
But it won't work, for the same reason it never has. People associate online content with "free". Getting them to pull out a card is close to impossible. This is doubly so when you consider that it's mostly kids and teens spending hours watching these videos.
Most adults who can pay their way aren't watching toy unboxings or some influencer's 'daily vlog'. Kids and adults alike also are unlikely to adjust to a system where they need to remember to pledge or tip. They are watching tens of videos per day, how would they make that decision?
You can pay for YouTube Premium. It lets you watch the videos ad-free. I assume that the creators still get paid for my views, since I'm paying for the ad-free experience. I don't even have to bother choosing who the money goes to. Just watch their videos and they get a few cents.
This would simply replace one way to monetize channels with a different one. What would this change? (Except allowing the advertisers to better sleep at night)
After reading some of the responses, this seems to the be the universal reaction as well.