YouTube video promotion AI change is a "historic victory"

[HEXUS]

Site will no longer draw watchers down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories or similar.

Read more.

[Tabbykatze]

When it goes back to giving suggestions relevant to the video I'm watching I'll be happy again. I could be watching a multi part video and the likelihood that the next video in the chain even shows up is less than 10%.

Right now it just seems to suggest next video based my video watch metrics

[Ozaron]

Agree with Tabby, and it's worse than that. Used to be that if you were on a music video which was clearly part of an album or collection, you'd have at least some of the rest of that album or collection in recommended. Now you're lucky to get one in the "next up" spot.

Once you watch a video in any somewhat popular topic, it'll start vomiting up related videos, even if you disliked that video, even if you say you're not interested to 100% of the recommendations it gives you from that topic. What bothers me more though is that there are lots of topics on Youtube which the algorithm just ignores, or the best it can do is recommend that you watch what you're already seen.

Add all of this to the obviously paid recommendations and the fact that new and interesting, relevant content proves hard to find at the best of times, and I'd argue it's halfway to useless.

[philehidiot]

My concern here is who defines what is "bull"? Who is making that distinction and what right do they have to essentially "peer review" and then decide if it might be harmful?

The examples they give are all quite acceptable - antivaxxers for example. But I absolutely GUARANTEE that this is a slippery slope, will be misused and it will extend to people with the "wrong" political opinions.... because we can all look at the same dataset and come out with different views. The problem is when someone else looks at it and decides your perspective is "bull" and deserves to be censored.

The other issue here is that you will end up with the very real possibility that only established convention will be promoted and non-standard / creative ideas will be supressed as "bull" by someone.

It was once believed the Earth was flat, now we know it is round. If you'd gone back in time and said it was round you'd be accused of spouting "bull". This will potentially stop creative from having their ideas promoted and as a result, they'll stop bothering. That is dangerous as it's the creative who are willing to challenge conventional wisdom with their "bull" that push us forward.

Youtube is a free marketplace of ideas. There will be some negative feedback from that as there is in all systems which are generally beneficial. For example the infernal combustion engine.... how many people die a year due to that? How many people don't?

Once you start deciding what we can and can't see, you lose a key element of societal freedom. It becomes censorship very quickly. Now the question is who do you trust to make the decision about what you can and can't see? About what ideas are good and what ideas are bad?

It's the slippery slope which started when they began putting some videos in a "restricted state".

[Mr_Jon]

now we know it is round

Proof?

[Ozaron]

proof?

s i g h

[Tabbykatze]

...somewhat reasonable argument that this is basically information control...

I get what you're saying but it is this free flood of information that keeps the, quite rightly so, potentially the most deadliest current day movement alive (Anti-Vax). Because of this free flood of information, vulnerable parents can be suckered in by media and those presenting its charisma. Frankly, anyone who spreads anti-vax mentalities should be expelled from society.

I think you've both said and missed the point of how this stuff will work. Accredited and fact base science will take precedence over sensationalised media. The earth is provably round and vaccinations have a minor risk to a minor subset of people (but are not linked to autism) of which both have scientific backing.

You are right in your insinuation that this could be used for nefarious purposes by the State, but is that Youtubes fault or the people voted into power? If you have a problem with how the state are abusing their power, don your guy fawkes hat, mask and a throw a train full of fertiliser bomb their way.

Edit: said flat not round, thanks Smudger! *slaps forehead over and over*

[Lanky123]

For those worried about Youtube deciding which videos get promoted I would counter that the print media have had this same power over people for a long, long time. For better or for worse a few unelected press barons have controlled what people read for hundreds of years. If people thought a paper printed rubbish they would stop reading and find another source of information. There are plenty of alternative sources of information on the internet (many of them without even an attempt at impartiality) if anyone feels the need to vote with their feet.

[DemonHighwayman]

We shall see how it performs in the weeks and months, but for me it just sounds like censorship. Will they be blocking videos which say the earth has a molten core ? will the block videos which say we are all alone in the universe ? will they block videos saying the Tasmanian tiger is extinct ?

The above are all theories which at the moment can't be proven either way and there are thousands of other examples littered around youtube. Many might laugh but the aliens/ufo theory and the theory of why the moon is there, are just that theories. Why does google/youtube get to decide what is real and what is hoax ? when a lot of what we are even taught in school is based on 'theory' but taught as 'fact'

[Rejuvination]

Maybe now that idiot with videos like " we are running out of gravity" will leave.

[Corky34]

My concern here is who defines what is "bull"? .....The problem is when someone else looks at it and decides your perspective is "bull" and deserves to be censored.

They're not censoring anything AFAIK, you'll still be able to watch "bull" is you want, they're just changing things so if you watch "bull" they'll not suggest yet more "bull" and help to amplify your echo chamber or feed into a cognitive bias.

.....that only established convention will be promoted and non-standard / creative ideas will be supressed as "bull" by someone.

I think the word you're looking for is consensus, it maybe non-standard / creative to theorise that the universe didn't start with the big bang but the consensus is that it did, that doesn't mean one or the other is more "bull" or right/wrong than the other, just that one idea has more evidence to support it than the other, like way more. The real question is where does the AI place the burden of proof? If 90% of the evidence points to X being true then fair enough but what about if something is 70-60%.

[Smudger]

The earth is provably flat and vaccinations have a minor risk to a minor subset of people (but are not linked to autism) of which both have scientific backing.

Erm, did you mean the first bit?

[Tabbykatze]

Erm, did you mean the first bit?

Which bit, earth or vax?

[raygdunn]

Maybe now that idiot with videos like " we are running out of gravity" will leave.

However, if you are the type, who thinks that the moon landings were fake news, perhaps you might take the real (and somewhat scary) possibility that the earth's north/south poles may flip in the near future and expect a gravity inversion as well? I wonder how many survivalists include a space suit in their supplies.

Perhaps I should stop reading so much Sci-Fi :-)

(Hopefully we will have less weird stuff in the "next video" section!)

[Tabbykatze]

Erm, did you mean the first bit?

Just reread and i did mean round. You know when you're writing and you have the two ways of saying something and you eventually say both which ends up the wrong thing! Basically a numpty moment, thanks for the catch

[Saracen999]

My concern here is who defines what is "bull"? Who is making that distinction and what right do they have to essentially "peer review" and then decide if it might be harmful?

The examples they give are all quite acceptable - antivaxxers for example. But I absolutely GUARANTEE that this is a slippery slope, will be misused and it will extend to people with the "wrong" political opinions.... because we can all look at the same dataset and come out with different views. The problem is when someone else looks at it and decides your perspective is "bull" and deserves to be censored.

The other issue here is that you will end up with the very real possibility that only established convention will be promoted and non-standard / creative ideas will be supressed as "bull" by someone.

It was once believed the Earth was flat, now we know it is round. If you'd gone back in time and said it was round you'd be accused of spouting "bull". This will potentially stop creative from having their ideas promoted and as a result, they'll stop bothering. That is dangerous as it's the creative who are willing to challenge conventional wisdom with their "bull" that push us forward.

Youtube is a free marketplace of ideas. There will be some negative feedback from that as there is in all systems which are generally beneficial. For example the infernal combustion engine.... how many people die a year due to that? How many people don't?

Once you start deciding what we can and can't see, you lose a key element of societal freedom. It becomes censorship very quickly. Now the question is who do you trust to make the decision about what you can and can't see? About what ideas are good and what ideas are bad?

It's the slippery slope which started when they began putting some videos in a "restricted state".

I more or less agree with the thrust if that, and have some similar concerns ....

BUT

.... I'd also point out that the bulk of the issue is that someone wrote the algorithms that do the selecting, and are now being "adjusted" in the first place.

I mean, arguably, the worse 'offence' is to try to record, analyse, and try to second-guess (nearly always extremely badly, in my limited experience) in the first place.

So if someone sets up a system that filters and priorities what we get offered, I find it hard to be critical of trying to amend that to remove harmful material.

I get the concern. Who watchers the watchers?

But I have a bigger probkem with being analysed at all, than this adjustment to it. As for sljppery slope, we're already on it. Which is why I rarely use these platforms, and most 'social media' platforms, I flat-out blacklist. Always have, always will.

But if we're going to have analysis, there are a few things I'd like to see :-

- first, the user has the ability to easily and completely disable any and all tracking, analysing and any recommending that isn't either other parts of something posted as a set, or outright random.

- at a minimum, the user being able to view, edit and delete metrics stored about them,

- if metrics are stored, the ability to tweal personal preferences, especially in relation to categories of 'dubious' content, be it porn, swearing, extreme political views and certainly, 'harmfull', i.e. enable or disable such categories.


The overall problem is that these companies all think THEY own the data about OUR activities. Laws need to change putting users back in control, and in the case of minors, parents of those users.

The internet is old enough now that the cowboy days should be over. But will things change? I doubt it, anytime soon, and if it ever does, only with these companies kicking and screaming - far too much money is at stake.