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

[asus killer]

3 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

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.

the good thing with statistics is that there aren't what if. Either it is or it isn't. The speech is the one that is subjective not the data.

[D13H4RD]

10 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

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

There's already one thing that makes this system stupidly broken. 

 

The potential inability for AI to differentiate between sarcasm and legitimacy, let alone what an /S tag is. 

 

It's a solution on the hunt for problems 

 

How they can just whisk the money off to some sort of charity (that isn't even mentioned) when the AI somehow flags a comment as hate speech without both the sender and streamer knowing just plain irks me. 

[Yoinkerman]

"charity"

 

The "alphabet is the next 13 figure company and might help sick kids no promises charity" charity

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, aezakmi said:

[IG-88]

I find it funny they say they don't want to profit off hate speech but are planning on donating other people's money to charity on their behalf. So it makes me wonder are all these charity donations tax deductible and will Google be trying to use them to reduce the amount of taxes they pay? If so wouldn't that also be a version of profiting? Also as others have pointed out the don't specify what charity it goes to. For all we know it could be a charity run by Google themselves with a 99% admin cost thus allowing them to pocket 99% of the "donation" and also claim it as a tax deduction. This whole this just seems wrong to me on so many levels and without more information it is hard to judge what Google's true intent ultimately is, but in the end I am not sure Google's intentions matter when they are stealing money from one person and giving it to another.

[Sauron]

4 minutes ago, IG-88 said:

it makes me wonder are all these charity donations tax deductible and will Google be trying to use them to reduce the amount of taxes they pay? If so wouldn't that also be a version of profiting?

Good question, although that wouldn't be a problem to begin with if they stuck to deleting the message and giving the money to the youtuber. I'm not sure it's tax deductible though, it's a bit as if paypal could get a tax deduction when you use their service to donate to charity... they are an intermediary, not the donator.

7 minutes ago, IG-88 said:

Also as others have pointed out the don't specify what charity it goes to. For all we know it could be a charity run by Google themselves with a 99% admin cost thus allowing them to pocket 99% of the "donation" and also claim it as a tax deduction.

That doesn't really matter, the principle is flawed - even if 100% of the money went straight into the hands of the poor, they'd still be funneling people's money there despite having said that the money would go to the streamer. If I want to donate money to charity I'm capable of doing so myself, I don't need Google to decide for me on money that I was trying to donate to someone else. Granted, I shouldn't be an asshat with my message, but if that's the problem then my transaction should be blocked before I can send it (maybe with a warning that my message wasn't acceptable), or be blocked but still reach the streamer with the money.

[Jito463]

58 minutes ago, asus killer said:

the good thing with statistics is that there aren't what if. Either it is or it isn't. The speech is the one that is subjective not the data.

Samuel Clemens (a.k.a. Mark Twain) would disagree with you.

http://www.twainquotes.com/Statistics.html

People have been manipulating statistics since statistics became a thing.  Again, the point is that there is no definitive, conclusive definition of what "hate speech" means, nor can there be.  Give me a speech by Fred Rodgers (of Mr. Rodgers' Neighborhood fame) and I guarantee you I can find something that someone, somewhere would be offended by, and he was the most inoffensive man on television.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

who wins here? it's gonna hurt streamers now that no one will bother with super chat if its not actually going to them, youtube does take a percentage of your payment as it does now and then its gonna go to charity, you gave youtube money and donated it to a random charity which you don't actually know where its gonna get used. 

[Fasterthannothing]

Why is there a news article like this every single freaking week someone needs to teach these companies to stay out of people's conversations on the internet and stop trying to be the thought police. The answer to all of this is very very simple you do nothing and when I say nothing you regulate absolutely nothing on the internet except illegal activity. If you don't regulate anyone's ideas and thoughts you don't have to worry about censorship or political bias. And before you say that would make the internet a toxic place does it really matter? If you don't like someone's opinions or attitude you don't have to just sit their and take it. Either argue your side or disengage from the conversation. People's feelings are too easily hurt and the reason for that is people are forcing it so others have to make sure they don't disturb someone's thought bubble.

[Canada EH]

7 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

super chat system works

I am not a big fan of instant chatting.

 

The only ones I like are forums like Pirate4x4 forums and others like that. Go in there asking a dumb question and see what happens, good luck!

[asus killer]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Samuel Clemens (a.k.a. Mark Twain) would disagree with you.

http://www.twainquotes.com/Statistics.html

People have been manipulating statistics since statistics became a thing.  Again, the point is that there is no definitive, conclusive definition of what "hate speech" means, nor can there be.  Give me a speech by Fred Rodgers (of Mr. Rodgers' Neighborhood fame) and I guarantee you I can find something that someone, somewhere would be offended by, and he was the most inoffensive man on television.

well if something is manipulated then it could be fake news, something that is also being addressed by tech companies.

I think you are confusing hate speech with political correctness movement, they don't seem to be the same to me. If it's hate everybody should be offended. If it's PC then it's whatever the wind blows that moment.

[Jito463]

4 minutes ago, asus killer said:

well if something is manipulated then it could be fake news, something that is also being addressed by tech companies.

I think you are confusing hate speech with political correctness movement, they don't seem to be the same to me. If it's hate everybody should be offended. If it's PC then it's whatever the wind blows that moment.

The issue is that the two are conflated, because people keep ascribing the term "hate speech" to things they disagree with.  No one asked the tech community to become the thought police, they just decided to do that on their own.  I have no qualms with services like YT, FB, etc deciding that only certain ideologies will be permitted on their service, so long as they state up front what ideologies they're fine with.  However, when they start claiming to be open for anyone to use - and then start banning people based on "wrong think" - I have a serious problem with that.

 

And when they go even further and threaten to steal donations from people accused of "wrong think", then that's almost certainly a criminal act in my opinion.

 

So yes, I am tying it to the PC movement, but for a good reason.

[Arika]

8 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

they're going to take the money and give it to charity

Is that before or after they take their 30%?

 

It had better be before, otherwise leave it up to the creator as to whether or not they want to keep it. 

 

Political correctness has gone absolutely bat-shit crazy

[paddy-stone]

Wow, that's F'd up beyond all reason... Surely that's theft then as they're taking the money and giving it away to someone the sender did not intend. They should return the funds to the sender if they think that it's going to someone that's profiting from hate. I really hope youtube gets in serious shit over this.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Hmmmm

 

It's a very slippery slope, but saying all is grey or wriggling ones hands without doing anything either has its own consequences. 

 

I think the biggest concern I have at the moment is that AIs are just a bit too good at learning the biases and bigotry of humanity, and less good at learning the much more subtle complexity of context. 

 

Those poor souls whose job is to work out the appropriateness of content fillers and manually double check against them are some of the most unsung heroes in modern society. The damage it inflicts on their psyche makes it rather understandable that any company would prefer to find some dispassionate consistent judge. Too bad we don't actually have a reference for that. (At least yet. I have very little hope that we might succeed, but most of the truly great problems seemed insurmountable right before they were solved.)

 

As a side note, return to sender wouldnt actually work without a massive overhaul of their financial backbone for service. I think, having thought about it for a while, the best implementation (at the very least until proof their filter methods are not noticeably and/or subtly flawed) would probably be to apply such filter on processing of the transaction itself, and decline it instead. You would probably want to then also apply a timeout for donation as a result, otherwise you literally won't do anything to impede the actual issue. Timeout doesnt actually prevent them from donating if highly motivated. Which you cant do much anyways. But it dramatically reduces the impulse actors, which is good. Making people think twice is a good policy in general.

 

In other words:

Proper:

If word=fine

-if money=fine

--Accept

--Send

-Else decline

Else decline

 

Bad/proposed:

If money=fine

-Accept

-If word=fine

--Send

-Else decline

 

 

[asus killer]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

The issue is that the two are conflated, because people keep ascribing the term "hate speech" to things they disagree with.  No one asked the tech community to become the thought police, they just decided to do that on their own.  I have no qualms with services like YT, FB, etc deciding that only certain ideologies will be permitted on their service, so long as they state up front what ideologies they're fine with.  However, when they start claiming to be open for anyone to use - and then start banning people based on "wrong think" - I have a serious problem with that.

 

And when they go even further and threaten to steal donations from people accused of "wrong think", then that's almost certainly a criminal act in my opinion.

 

So yes, I am tying it to the PC movement, but for a good reason.

you read the part this was directed at the "alt right"? aren't you making assumptions.

[Kamina]

"Hey, we'll show those right wing youtubers by donating their hate to charity!"

 

That's how I see it. Youtube is a corporate hugbox. After seeing the leaked memo and documents, these smug, self righteous soy-filled men need to grow the hell up.

 

I hope this is seen by the supreme court.

[Jito463]

40 minutes ago, asus killer said:

you read the part this was directed at the "alt right"? aren't you making assumptions.

I already addressed this on the first page of the thread.

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/985423-youtube-is-now-messing-with-the-super-chat-feature-of-live-streams/?do=findComment&comment=11877319

I don't trust YT to not abuse this, and sanction their ideological foes in the guise of stopping "hate speech".  You think it's okay because you believe it's directed at legitimate targets, but you're the one assuming if you believe it will stop at racists.

[Curufinwe_wins]

17 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I already addressed this on the first page of the thread.

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/985423-youtube-is-now-messing-with-the-super-chat-feature-of-live-streams/?do=findComment&comment=11877319

I don't trust YT to not abuse this, and sanction their ideological foes in the guise of stopping "hate speech".  You think it's okay because you believe it's directed at legitimate targets, but you're the one assuming if you believe it will stop at racists.

 Now look, I've outlined my own opinions higher on this page... but the thing I think most people need to consider is that something like this doesn't just start at racists. It targets even more extreme channels than any of the ones referenced in the OP. It targets radical religious extremism, human trafficking, child exploitation. The very blackest parts of humanity. 

 

It isn't all that much more moral (I'd argue at all) to choose to do nothing against those either. There does have to be some line. Some set of action in place. Super chat is far too easy to abuse.

 

I don't think the current set of policy proposed here is a good one (as mentioned here), but I also think Uncle Ben isn't wrong "w/ great power comes great responsibility".

 

 

[toor]

Ahh yes, the left's boogieman - "harassment".   You know whose harassing?  THEM.  

 

So very tired of hearing this crap.  It has nothing to do with harassment in the way you think it does.  Their 'AI' does NOT work any better then an IRC client.  It's actually kinda worse.

 

Virtue SIgnaling, nothing more.  

 

You're welcome.

[Kamina]

It's evolving... 

Comments being altered.

 

 

[Curufinwe_wins]

47 minutes ago, Kamina said:

It's evolving... 

Comments being altered.

 

 

Lol. So you know how he mentioned that it looked like some crap that google translate poops out? It is. The posts aren't actually being edited. He's wrong as it happens. Google integration has auto detection and translation of various web pages. The post isnt actually being changed, but Google is automatically translating the post from what it thinks is a different language into English. If you cant find what part of the page is triggering the auto translate, all you have to do to fix the issue is disable page translation without prompts.

 

How do I know this? It's happened to me. I lost my shit and was freaking out trying to figure out what's going on (I was messaging a friend through this and other sites.) She screenshot proved that my sent message was the same as the one I typed, but it showed up different on my page.

 

This isnt related to the current topic.

 

 

EDIT: Replicated the issue as proof. It was probably from Russian to English. Side-note, my example problem was also due to auto-detection of Russian. My friend being from a former soviet republic and my having typed a bit of russian (I have a very basic understanding) in our dialogue before that point.

 

This behavior doesn't occur with most languages that write using a roman script, so most of the time, we wouldn't notice an errant translation attempt.

Most languages just spit back out english words as is if they don't match up exactly to known words in Google translate. This isn't done in Russian because the alphabet is different and google attempts to translate people's butchered beliefs of how russian words sound/should be spelled in roman script (instead of cryllic). Like Da Svidaniya is not actually how the word is spelled. It is spelled до свидания, but the stress of the language make it sound sorta like da svidaniya. Ergo when translating languages using a different script by default, google attempts to "interpret" what you mean when you don't spell things correctly, while languages that use Roman scripts instead tends to just spit it back out unchanged.

 

[Canada EH]

2 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

isnt actually being changed, but Google is automatically translating the post from what it thinks is a different language into English.

So yes, it is being changed.

Change is change.

[Curufinwe_wins]

54 minutes ago, Canada EH said:

So yes, it is being changed.

Change is change.

The post stored on the site isnt being changed. The post other people see isnt being changed. The text HE sees changes because autotranslate is running. Turn it off and the issue disappears.

 

It's nothing to do with censor or conspiracy or anything. You read the comments of the video and its half people typing the comment without any issue. Because there is no issue. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

Proof. Issue replicated.