YouTube is now messing with the Super Chat feature of live streams

[Ralphred]

Just send your "hatespeech" in a normal chat, and save the "hugs and kisses" for the superchat.

Google finding AI non-solutions to non-existent problems...

[matrix07012]

Solving something that's not an issue with a broken system, because someone somewhere doesn't like something.

Real GREAT job! /s

 

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

is it just me that think this is fine? if people are using YT to be assholes then YT gives the money to charity. How can this be a bad thing?

The terms asshole, hatespeech etc are subjective, context isn't considered, taking someones money and giving it to someone else than originally agreed upon is theft. 

[Razor Blade]

Well If you want censorship to fly in a free country, you need to take baby steps.

[imreloadin]

Hopefully this kills the whole "super" chat shit. I hated the entire idea of that thing.

[plsno]

They should just ban their account and credit card if they're really worried about it. I don't see this going over well for them given their track record with how they demonetize videos. 

[williamcll]

Streaming on floatplane when?

[Sauron]

That sounds stupid, why don't they just give the money to the streamer but block the message or substitute it with a generic "you rock" or something?

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

is it just me that think this is fine? if people are using YT to be assholes then YT gives the money to charity. How can this be a bad thing?

 

 

It's theft. Google is stealing from the streamer and the tipper by doing this.

 

Political motivation does not justify theft.

Donating stolen goods does not justify theft.

Having authority over the person you're stealing from does not justify theft.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It's theft. Google is stealing from the streamer and the tipper by doing this.

I'd say it's a scam more than theft if what counts as hate speech is not made extremely clear.

[Drak3]

Just now, Sauron said:

it's a scam more than theft

Google is taking something they have no right to, it isn't theirs. It's theft.

[RejZoR]

Hate speech = Anything they don't like. And all this Ai nonsense never worked well and never will. The "Ai" is dumb, has no concept of irony, sarcasm or jokes. It'll detect a joke as something offensive (because everything is offensive to them) and pretty much steal your and the sender's money. It's almost as if Google is desperate to lose that last micro gram of trust anyone still has in them lol and they basically have immunity because they are so big, like Facebook. I used to love Google, but now they are just a cringe factory.

[Sauron]

9 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Google is taking something they have no right to, it isn't theirs. It's theft.

No - they're convincing someone to willingly give them money under the pretense of giving it to the youtuber. Convincing someone to give you money under false pretenses is a scam. They aren't reaching into their pockets and taking their money against their will, which would be theft.

[aezakmi]

3 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

harassing chats

O H  N O  I'm gonna kill myself because of a chat message!!11 I'm offended!!! It's OK to be everything except a white male!1!!

 

2018/9/etc in a fucking rotten nutshell

 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, aezakmi said:

O H  N O  I'm gonna kill myself because of a chat message!!11 I'm offended!!! It's OK to be everything except a white male!1!!

 

2018/9/etc in a fucking rotten nutshell

 

You almost sound... *gasp*... offended!

[asus killer]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

You don't see an issue with this?

not really, if even knowing it was profiting from hate speech the YTuber stills wants their money, then he's also an asshole.

 

20 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It's theft. Google is stealing from the streamer and the tipper by doing this.

 

Political motivation does not justify theft.

Donating stolen goods does not justify theft.

Having authority over the person you're stealing from does not justify theft.

the same answer as above

 

1 hour ago, matrix07012 said:

Solving something that's not an issue with a broken system, because someone somewhere doesn't like something.

Real GREAT job! /s

 

The terms asshole, hatespeech etc are subjective, context isn't considered, taking someones money and giving it to someone else than originally agreed upon is theft. 

how is hatespeech subjetive? it's either hate or not. Is hate also subjective?

[aezakmi]

8 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You almost sound... *gasp*... offended!

[Drak3]

10 minutes ago, asus killer said:

if even knowing it was profiting from hate speech the YTuber stills wants their money, then he's also an asshole.

That is amongst the stupidest thing's I've read.

That streamer is entitled to the money that the tipper is trying to give him, regardless of the message. The message is irrelevant.

 

Only thieves try to justify theft.

10 minutes ago, asus killer said:

how is hatespeech subjetive? it's either hate or not. Is hate also subjective?

1. Hate speech is a fictious lie to promote and propagate cebsorship
2. What is considered hate is subjective. Using statistics to defend upholding immigration laws is considered hate speech in the US by some people. Using suicide statistics and psychology to try to have a conversation about why transgenderism isn't good for mental health is considered hatespeech. Neother of these things are hateful by rational people that have the necessary information to actually consider the ramifications of blindly following obe side or the other.

[asus killer]

26 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

That is amongst the stupidest thing's I've read.

That streamer is entitled to the money that the tipper is trying to give him, regardless of the message. The message is irrelevant.

 

Only thieves try to justify theft.

1. Hate speech is a fictious lie to promote and propagate cebsorship
2. What is considered hate is subjective. Using statistics to defend upholding immigration laws is considered hate speech in the US by some people. Using suicide statistics and psychology to try to have a conversation about why transgenderism isn't good for mental health is considered hatespeech. Neother of these things are hateful by rational people that have the necessary information to actually consider the ramifications of blindly following obe side or the other.

there are countless other ways to donate and you won't even loose 30%, so no, superchat is all about the message.

 

i seriously doubt this is targeting discussions about statistics on superchat, still if it's the rule of the land then it's also not allowed on the internet i imagine, the internet is not above US laws.

 

 

[Jito463]

35 minutes ago, Sauron said:

No - they're convincing someone to willingly give them money under the pretense of giving it to the youtuber.

Except that they're not convincing people to give money to YT.  Those people would ostensibly be giving money to the streamer, when it's arbitrarily intercepted by YT and diverted to another destination.  Whether YT themselves profit from it or not is irrelevant, it's still theft.

19 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

• Hate speech is a fictious lie to promote and propagate censorship

You beat me to it.  There's no way to clearly and consistently define "hate speech", as there's almost as many definitions as there apparently are genders now.  Hate speech is just another means of controlling the language and thus controlling people.  This whole scenario relies on us trusting YT's judgment in defining what that means.

3 minutes ago, asus killer said:

the internet is not above US laws

Thankfully, we in the US don't have "hate speech" laws, even though there are those who would love to see it happen.

Edited October 21, 2018 by Jito463
Additional response appended

[asus killer]

6 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Thankfully, we in the US don't have "hate speech" laws, even though there are those who would love to see it happen.

that's my bad i misunderstood what he wrote, i read it as actual laws, seemed weird, but hey. So my bad. Still i would say this is unlikely to target statistic discussions

[Trik'Stari]

Right, "charity".

 

They certainly won't just pocket the money for themselves under a charity they or someone who works for them or is somehow tangentially related to them.

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, asus killer said:

that's my bad i misunderstood what he wrote, i read it as actual laws, seemed weird, but hey. So my bad. Still i would say this is unlikely to target statistic discussions

He was saying that those opposed to unlawful immigration (e.g. in support of enforcing immigration laws) - and simply citing statistics to support that stance - are often accused of hate speech merely for using those statistics.  He wasn't referring to any specific law regarding such speech, it was just an allegory to explain why the term "hate speech" has no consistently definable meaning.

[asus killer]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

He was saying that those opposed to unlawful immigration (e.g. in support of enforcing immigration laws) - and simply citing statistics to support that stance - are often accused of hate speech merely for using those statistics.  He wasn't referring to any specific law regarding such speech, it was just an allegory to explain why the term "hate speech" has no consistently definable meaning.

it would depend not on the statistics but on the actual speech accompanying it. If it goes south from there it's hate speech. There is too many migrants in the US seems fine. Saying they're all rapists seems not fine. 

[D13H4RD]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

That sounds stupid, why don't they just give the money to the streamer but block the message or substitute it with a generic "you rock" or something?

You hold Google's logic to way too high of a standard. 

 

This won't be their last time they screw it up. 

[Jito463]

2 minutes ago, asus killer said:

There is too many migrants in the US seems fine. Saying they're all rapists seems not fine. 

What if the statistics bear our that there are a disproportionate number of rapists coming across our border illegally?  Who decides that something said is hate speech?

 

You're getting distracted in the weeds.

 

The issue is not the speech and whether or not someone can find it offensive (anyone can find offense in any speech at any time), it's whether you trust YT to properly define something that has never had a definitive definition applied to it.  Something that has not - and cannot - be consistently defined.

 

And furthermore, whether you trust them to apply that definition to accurately decide who to steal donated money from, in order to fund "charities" (another thing we have zero information about) that they deem proper.  And make no mistake, taking money meant for one person and arbitrarily diverting it to someone else, is theft.

 

There is far too much wrong with this system for it to make any sense to support.