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

[D13H4RD]

And there's yet another question.

 

What exactly does Google define "hate speech" as?

 

Is it stuff that only stem from the so-called "alt-right"? Or is it derogatory remarks made by anyone with the intention to hurt regardless of political affiliation and gender/race?

[AlwaysFSX]

I'll gladly take $20 for someone to call my X, Y, or Z. It's not like I have to read it on stream. And gasp maybe some people on the internet send you hurtful messages. They still don't have to pay for that either. Now it's a problem because you get money out of it? Okay then.

[suicidalfranco]

yeah, nope youtube, i'd rather take the insults with the cash than give it to charity 

[asus killer]

7 hours 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.

wait a minute. I read something and gave my opinion on that. You read something and assumed something else.

You can be right, but when and if abuse happens then will talk, and this is YT and youtubers, we'll know.

[RejZoR]

14 hours 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

 

There is a difference between being pissed and offended...

[Sfekke]

Google, when it ain't broke .. don't fix it.

They don't get that do they?

 

[Canada EH]

4 hours ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

What exactly does Google define "hate speech" as?

Whatever they want it to be.

[Master Disaster]

3 hours ago, Canada EH said:

Whatever they want it to be.

Actually its whatever their bots decide it to be, which is even worse.

[IntMD]

Simple answer, the YouTube cut goes directly to charity, the streamer can set a flag to auto accept, or deny the flagged messages.

 

Alternatively have an option to select if they want to have a look through them and decide themselves which they don't like, or want & give them 7 days (for example) to go through them at which point the money goes whichever way they have a default flag set to (either them or a charity) so they don't have to look at them if they don't want to and it just gets defaulted how the streamer wants it to be. This may also help train the AI on what that particular stream deems acceptable.

[ChineseChef]

I'm curious about the legality of taking the money under false pretenses.  I can completely see denying the donation for "insert any reason here".  But I don't understand how it can be legal to take someone's money, then say you gave it to their intended recipient, but then give the money to someone else.  I mean, if I use Paypal to send someone money for cheese, and Paypal thinks cheese is bad for you, so it gives the money to "charity", that can't be legal.  Can it?  How can a business be allowed to essentially lie to a paying "customer"??

[Canada EH]

7 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Actually its whatever their bots decide it to be, which is even worse.

Great point.

 

 

A.I. is dangerous!