Slashdot Mirror
To Answer Critics, YouTube Tries a New Metric: Responsibility (bloomberg.com)
YouTube is changing the way it measures success on the world's biggest video site following a series of scandals. There's just one problem: The company is still deciding how this new approach works, Bloomberg reports. From the report: The Google division introduced two new internal metrics in the past two years for gauging how well videos are performing, according to people familiar with the company's plans. One tracks the total time people spend on YouTube, including comments they post and read (not just the clips they watch). The other is a measurement called "quality watch time," a squishier statistic with a noble goal: To spot content that achieves something more constructive than just keeping users glued to their phones.
The changes are supposed to reward videos that are more palatable to advertisers and the broader public, and help YouTube ward off criticism that its service is addictive and socially corrosive. Creating the right metric for success could help marginalize videos that are inappropriate, or popular among small but active communities with extreme views. It could also help YouTube make up for previous failures in curbing the spread of toxic content. YouTube, like other parts of Alphabet's Google, uses these corporate metrics as goal posts for most business and technical decisions -- how it pays staff and creates critical software like its recommendation system. But the company has yet to settle on how the "quality watch time" metric works, or communicate how the new measure will impact millions of "creators" who upload videos to the site.
The changes are supposed to reward videos that are more palatable to advertisers and the broader public, and help YouTube ward off criticism that its service is addictive and socially corrosive. Creating the right metric for success could help marginalize videos that are inappropriate, or popular among small but active communities with extreme views. It could also help YouTube make up for previous failures in curbing the spread of toxic content. YouTube, like other parts of Alphabet's Google, uses these corporate metrics as goal posts for most business and technical decisions -- how it pays staff and creates critical software like its recommendation system. But the company has yet to settle on how the "quality watch time" metric works, or communicate how the new measure will impact millions of "creators" who upload videos to the site.
I'll believe it when it when they give **users** better tools to flag clickbait when content creators pull shenanigans like hiding the number of up/down votes or just outright disabling comments.
*Cough* Verge PC Building "Guide" created by an idiot then blames the community for being "toxic" when they are called out on their ignorance.
But that would be anathema to millenial SJWs so here we are.
"The changes are supposed to reward videos that are more palatable to advertisers and the broader public..." Because the bandwagon fallacy is how everything should be decided?!? Popular lies are way more palatable than uncomfortable truths. This will not be an improvement.
It could also help YouTube make up for previous failures in curbing the spread of toxic content
I don't see how, because any way you slice it these kinds of videos would be rated as high on the list of "quality viewing" - people would be watching the whole thing, and commenting on them also. I mean, they do today...
The stuff that would fare worse under this new regime would be the video equivalent of listicles, or those videos with really terrible voice synthesizers droning on about whatever... where you just get annoyed and stop watching after a minute or skip around quickly and leave.
I do think it would down-rate some stupid content, but not the kind of content the summary thinks it would effect.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It could also help YouTube make up for previous failures in curbing the spread of toxic content.
Toxic content is newspeak for facts or opinions that we do not like.
I'm just wondering who gets to define what is and is not "toxic content."
Recently it seems that "toxic content" is simply anything that criticizes, calls attention to the failures of, or otherwise sheds light on the truth about the failures of leftist extremism.
Does that mean no more silly cat videos?
So, YouTube is going to no-platform ideas snowflakes find triggering.
How "progressive" of them.
Descartes is spinning in his grave.
All media will receive a Social Harmony Score.
Low Social Harmony Score content will be hidden. Producers of Low Social Harmony Score content will be discouraged and penalized.
High Social Harmony Score will be encouraged. Producers of High Social Harmony Score content will be encouraged and rewarded.
The Corporate Social Credit of youtube is increasing. They will be rewarded for that.
Welcome to the future.
the company that has 100% Authority with Zero Responsibility(except to stockholders) wants to tell us what about responsibility.
"But I will defend to the death your right to say it"
-- Abraham Lincoln
Other than simply providing access to uploaded videos in a dumb pipe fashion. We should not be allowed to make content their problem, it is not. Just provide the access, skim a very small percentage of the advertising profits, and charge for the upload bandwidth if you must. This is the kind of service we must make bulletproof, and find a way to circumvent the ISPs that censor them. Unfettered communications is paramount. There is no other way to control authority.
" They see people almost being denied a supreme court seat because they once had a beer while in school." - No, he perjured himself under oath. It's not the beer, you lying faggot. IT'S THE LYING, YOU LYING FAGGOT.
YOU TELL A LIE UNDER OATH AND YOU ARE A CRIMINAL. That he basically ATTEMPTED TO RAPE A CLASSMATE also didn't really rise to the occasion of a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS without investigation.
But with TRAITOR SUPPORTING DISHONEST FAGGOTS LIKE YOURSELF in charge? He sailed right through anyway, to lie another day.
Dry your eyes, traitor. Your little perjurer didn't get caught - yet!
https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=13577626&cid=58274188
This sounds like a good variable for china to add to its 'social credit score', which it routinely uses to abuse minorities and suppress freedoms. Sounds a little bit like it might be useful for the same thing as well. Are there any alternatives to youtube?
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
> It could also help YouTube make up for previous failures in curbing the spread of toxic content.
No content is toxic it is content. Jews wish for the power to label content toxic, or somebody antisemitic, or something hate speech etc. All scamjob shit.
Susan Wojcicki CEO of YouTube is every bit as Jewish as Brin and Page of Google. Orthodox? Of course not it's bullshit they have too much USD to waste time with the chicken whirling goat sacrifice shit. They just claim Jewish to be in "Scam's Club".
Look how they say it.. "responsibility". It is MONITORING and PROFILING. Look how they say antisemitic is against Jews.. Jewish is not a race nor is anybody against the Semite race. But they say if you are against Jews (lying cunts) then it is antisemitic.
Unbrainwash yourselves. Hard to do when Jews are paying Americans to spew their scripts to normalize their agendas to Americans' own people.
eg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-_s8c_URQU
hi guys https://twitter.com/superzar2000/with_replies
In china there's the crazy social credit system. IE there's things that help and hurt your social credit score, which is kinda bad, but the real crazy part of it, when you hang around people with bad social credit, your score also drops, even if you don't do anything negative in the system, you are considered toxic by association.
Require all companies with more than (N) share of web traffic to monitor how long users stay on their platform, and publish statistics. A "platform" in this context may include a site, an app, a game.
Any site where more than 10% of the total users accumulate more than 2 hours a day, for more than 2 days a week, should be taxed on a sliding scale.
It's designed to punish addictive content.
Alternative to YouTube.
https://www.freespeechtube.org/
Palatable to the politics of SJW?
The UK gov?
France?
Germany?
Spain?
The Communist party in China?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Jussie, is that you?
Too bad I didn't see the story until it was about to die. I'd have like to throw in my two-cents worth. However as it stands, the discussion is already falling off the front page, and there is no mention of "filter", the key to making it useful.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
The right is still playing the victim card from the Obama years, but this problem isn't just limited to left censorship or extermism, I've watched the same crap coming from the right for years, even as they push out anti-left propaganda like those nice NRA videos saying how these lefties need to be handled.
America itself is toxic today. My children won't be raised here.
The phrase "reward videos that are more palatable to advertisers" tells me exactly what this is about. It's about keeping down any videos which express sensitive opinions - because advertisers want nothing to do with politics, any specifics of religion, or absolutely anything relating to sex. Such video is more trouble than it's worth.