YouTube Is Fighting the 'Adpocalypse' With a Less Trigger-Happy Flagging System (theverge.com)

YouTube has rolled out a new algorithm that the company says will more accurately reflect YouTube's guidelines for ad-friendly material and result in fewer videos being flagged as advertiser-friendly. "It will supposedly reduce the number of demonetized listings by 30 percent, so 'millions more videos' will be able to make money off the full range of advertisements," reports The Verge. From the report: A YouTube manager writes that the new algorithm was trained by nearly three months' worth of human reviews, starting after YouTube added a manual appeals process for creators in August. Theoretically, this should narrow the range of false positives -- videos that were incorrectly flagged for promoting drug use, using excessive profanity, highlighting gratuitous violence, or otherwise featuring content that advertisers might find objectionable. It's being applied retroactively, so creators who didn't appeal could still get some old videos remonetized. Google also encourages people to keep appealing potentially incorrect flags, because "this updated system is an improvement, but it's not perfect."

Comments

Advertising

[110010001000]

It is 2017 people. Who is still viewing Youtube without an adblocker???

Re:Advertising

[0123456]

Which adblocker blocks Youtube ads?

Mostly I just try to avoid the site these days because the ads are so annoying.

Re:Advertising

[110010001000]

All of them? I don't get it. I personally use a HOSTS file blocker produced from a genius called APK. Ever heard of him?

Re: Advertising

[110010001000]

I don't get it. Why would you NOT block ads? They frequently maintain malware. Business models are not my problem.

Re:Advertising

[Greyfox]

My GF refused to install one until I stealthily put Ublock Origin on the living room gaming/vr rig I set up. After a couple of weeks of browsing on that, she was actually angry about how shitty the internet is without an ad blocker.

Re: Advertising

[Cinnamon Beige]

I honestly would be quite happy to whitelist any ad group that makes a point--openly, publicly, and in both words and actions--of making sure that they don't serve as a malware vector.

If they really wanted my love? Let me also flag offensive ads, ads which are betting that the viewer will forget that they hate them but remember the brand, and say flat-out that I don't & won't for the foreseeable future use that product so stop showing me ads for it.

The problem I see

[rsilvergun]

is folks flagging stuff as 'controversial' because they disagree with it. Lots of the left wing channels got flagged. But even some science channels got flagged by the anti-climate change folks and the 'intelligent design' crowd.

Re:The problem I see

[taiwanjohn]

It's done on both sides of the political spectrum, as well as a lot of content that isn't political at all. The only difference I've noticed is that a slightly higher proportion of right-wing YouTubers seem to think it's only happening to them, and blame it on "left wing media bias," whereas the lefties call it "corporate media bias."

Simple solution

[Okian Warrior]

is folks flagging stuff as 'controversial' because they disagree with it. Lots of the left wing channels got flagged. But even some science channels got flagged by the anti-climate change folks and the 'intelligent design' crowd.

The simplest solution would be for Google to simply say "all or nothing".

I've never understood why companies want to wade into arguments about what is acceptable speech. It's killing Hollywood, the NFL, CNN, the NYT, the professional lives of many high-profile people, and a whole lot of companies such as Twitter and Kelloggs.

Google could step up and say "It's not our job to regulate speech. If you want to advertize with us, it's all or nothing". It would be simple, easy, and cheap to implement.

As a second choice, they could say "If you want to specify which YouTube videos your ads get served to, give us a list. Otherwise, it's not our job to regulate or even *categorize* speech".

Trying to second-guess what advertizers find objectionable is a foolish goal.

If the advertizers have concerns, it should be their job to police it.

Re:Simple solution

[William Baric]

YouTube is not a broadcasting company. If people watch a video, it's because they choose to watch it, meaning they like the content. Companies refusing to display ads for their products before some content is pretty much like saying : because you like this content, we don't like you and we don't want you to buy our product.

It looks to me companies in the US now prefer to push a political agenda rather than to make a profit.

People who appreciate other peoples' work

[Leuf]

I get a little money from YouTube ads. It doesn't come anywhere near to paying for the hours that go into making my content. I'm okay with that but the more money I get the easier it is to justify the time spent. I used to be like you and think I was cool for knowing what an adblocker is.

Re:People who appreciate other peoples' work

[110010001000]

Ads frequently contain malware. You are stupid if you allow it. Adblocking isn't "cool", it is necessary.

Re:Why?

[SeaFox]

Why would YouTube do this?

Because the policy was causing lots of highly-popular content creators to consider ditching YouTube for other sites. They want to make money for their videos, and if YouTube is going to stop the flow of revenue they have no reason to post there. But, not-coincidentally, people go to YouTube to watch the videos of those creators. If those videos stop appearing there people have less reason to go to YouTube.

See how the system benefits publishers and creators as well when there is no exclusivity contract locking content to a particular service?

They tried that

[rsilvergun]

it was their old system. It lead to a few adverts showing up on Neo-Nazi channels. The advertisers freaked out thinking they'd be associated with supporting Nazis and pulled their ads. Like it or not youtube, like tv, has to worry about offending people since people who get offended are loud. Annoying, but loud.

Re: They tried that

[guruevi]

Which was really only advertisers being politically correct, YouTube couldâ(TM)ve let the whole thing blow over and/or allowed a way for advertisers to specify channel filters. Ad companies would never have used it because they really donâ(TM)t care as long as people see the ads and buy the stuff and everyone else wouldâ(TM)ve been happy and the SJW appeased.

YouTube has really pissed off its creators

[gweihir]

If a viable alternative becomes available, they will be gone, even if it is years from now.
Morale: Do not do something like this to people you critically depend on.

it's out of control

[slashmydots]

I run a huge channel and about 1 in 5 of my PG-rated content is being flagged. 100% of the appeals were reversed by a human, indicating the bot is wrong. It's basically random at this point. Creators are PISSED and they're moving to Twitch. Youtube needs to send snowflakebot back to its safe space and tell these marketing reps for companies whining about MAAAHH AAADDDSSS to fuck off. You don't need all advertisers, especially progressive liberal nut jobs whining about their ads being on Christian and gun channels.

Ad friendly depends on who's advertising

[Air-conditioned cowh]

Just because X company says, "We don't want our advert next to any drug-related video (including harm-reduction)" doesn't mean that every advertiser feels the same stupid way. Just give advertisers the option to check-box exactly what type of videos they freak out about without just assuming a one-size-fits-all. Probably most advertisers don't care or would rather not impact on free speech, given the choice.

Ad-Match

[Citizen of Earth]

Running fewer ads just makes YouTube less money. Why don't they have a scheme where the advertisers choose what kinds of videos they want to be associated with. I'm sure there's lots of sleazy or politically-partisan advertisers for everyone.

Re:Shit job of not being evil

[Rockoon]

Agreed.

Some of the most popular TV programming of all time would not be allowed today.

All in the Family for instance could not get past a pilot episode today. Someones feelings might get hurt.

Meanwhile the casting couch rape culture and pedophile rings of Hollywood are only just now being noticed.. Hollywood is full of a bunch of hypocrite assholes that think all their own problems are also part of everyone elses lives. I got news for you Hollywood... what the rest of the country isnt... is like Hollywood.