Rather than try to censor or control the internet, why not have proper penalties for those who abuse the system and break laws. Long sentences including life sentences that mean life, with hard labour for the likes of *****s, fraudsters, etc. Forget the human rights nambie pambies; 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for life, no work, no food. They do it in Rwanda and it works well, crime is minimal, all wear orange overalls and 50 convicts are guarded by 1 guard with a sub-machine gun. Do a runner and you are shot, people are sh!te scared to go to prison. That is the way it should be. Decent people are free to live their lives safely, evil fekkers are forced to work as slaves basically for the rest of their days. Good riddance I say. This world has gone soft on crime, whether it be street crime, internet crime or whatever.
Here's the point about Youtube: when Google bought the service they were looking to reverse two trends that were affecting it, namely finding a more effective way to monetise the platform so it would be able to pay for its server farms and stopping the practice that was prevalent around 2006-8 of people simply ripping a movie from a DVD and uploading it to the platform that was getting them hit with lawsuits. While the former is still a work in progress twelve years after Google bought Youtube, hence the last year or two of essentially dicking over any small-to-mid range Youtuber with their changes to monetisation and upgrading the algorithm so half the time people aren't aware that channels that they're subscribed to have uploaded videos which just so happened to coincide with advertisers leaving the platform due to controversies involving various high-profile Youtubers who didn't realise they aren;t some 13-year old edgelord on Twitter with six followers who are only their mates. The latter, on the other hand, was addressed when they brought in their ContentID system, which stopped people uploading the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy to their channel but, more importantly, it took the blame off of Youtube itself and placed it onto the individual channel, as anyone who ContentIDs a video can either have the video removed entirely, or have the video remain but place ads on it so the company itself will monetise the video. ContentID has two main problems to it, though. The first of which is the fault of the creators themselves as they don't understand what Fair Use is, for example... * The Nostalgia Critic initially had to leave Youtube and moved to BlipTV (when that existed) due to constant ContentID claims, mainly because his "reviews" mainly consisted of him describing the plot in detail while illustrating it with clips of full scenes, and he responded by constantly whining about Fair Use having a "Satire/Parody clause" as if there is such a thing, because his understanding (and several other channels) appears to be that if they think it's funny it's Fair Use * Shovelware merchants Digital Homicide's frankly baffling vendetta against Jim Sterling began when their hit his video criticising one of their shoddy games with a copyright strike citing Fair Use and attempted to defend their actions by saying the video wasn't Fair Use as the comments he made were unfair. Yes, you did read that correctly. * Matt Hoss responded to h3h3productions ripping the piss out of one of his cringy and misogynistic pickup videos by not only Contend IDing the video but also suing them, and his case against them was that h3h3 didn't ask for permission to use the clip so therefore violated copyright due to Hoss believing that, because Weird Al Yankovic asks permission from the artists he parodies, that means anyone making a parody has to ask permission to fall under Fair Use (and not, say, Weird Al doing so as a professional courtesy) - unsurprisingly, when the case got to court, Hoss was utterly reamed by the judge for being such a colossal dickhead The other problem is the rampant abuse of it by both individuals and companies. There's a couple of examples of individuals abusing the system above (Digital Homicide was a pair of brothers from Arizona) while a prominent recent example is a pickup artist by the name of Richard La Ruina who responded to every Youtuber who was ripped the piss out of a dating sim he released earlier this year by abusing the ContentID system to try and silence them, while KSI & Logan Paul have also been caught doing so recently on any videos discussing their boxing match from a few weeks back. As for companies, there's a reason very few Let's Play channels play Nintendo games as they are notorious for abusing ContentID so they can place ads on those videos and monetise the video for themselves, while it's noticeable that CinemaSins gets hit with ContentID strikes on videos from certain studios (case in point, every Netflix original film they've featured to this point has been ContentID'd) while others leave them alone - although this example may or may not be down to automation. And this is where Article 13 comes into it, because while so many people are saying that it's the EU censoring the internet (especially the usual concern trolling dickheads tweeting how they voted remain but now they wish they could change their mind, as if people can't check their Twitter feed and see months of pro-UKIP posts on there...) it's not censoring the internet, that's what China does, what Article 13 is is a form of ContentID. As I've outlined at length, ContentID is a system that has flaws and is wide open to abuse, and that's what people should be addressing: what are the checks and balances? For example, when a Youtuber is hit with a ContentID strike, one of the following will happen a.) They demand a manual review, and the video returns (although the bigger the channel the faster the process happens) b.) They respond with a counter strike, at which point the person making the strike has two weeks (or a month in the case of the KSI/Logan Paul example cited above) to take it to court or the video goes back up c.) They find the corporation abusing the ContentID system is dragging the process out for a long time in the hope the Youtuber gives up so the corporation can run ads on the video and pocket the ad revenue (the BBC is particularly fond of this one) d.) They discover their understanding of Fair Use wasn't anything close to the legal definition and the video is taken down When you apply this to the entire internet...yeah, then you see a problem, as a system with demonstrable flaws is being implemented, while people either ignore or completely miss the valid criticisms and go off half-cocked on some conspiratorial nonsense
They (and their kin) are displaying the infection of the most pernicious "social disease" : - authority WITHOUT responsibility - reward WITHOUT cost - acclaim WITHOUT blame and their particular case, are they are media content PUBLISHER or ENABLER. The EU with their legislation have decided the former is true (though youtube desperately do not want this - for other reasons currently playing out in the USA) . youtube et al will be responsible for : 1. somehow analysing the content uploaded by everyone, and deciding whether any of it has copyright implications 2. ensuring that when the owner is an EU denizen, that money is paid to the owner (from Youtube themselves, from the uploader etc) 3. preventing that content from being uploaded if 2 is not done So apart from being an EU attempted "tax on breathing" directed at Silicon Valley, it also has a nice potential side-effect of placing typical political content (which often references broadcast media with intended "fair use" ) in a very long upload queue (ensuring that "timely" appearance near an event is very difficult) . In reality, given the costs, said content may just be subject to #3 by defaut because of the costs. As I said, I am l looking forward to the cognitive dissonance and dichotomy meltdowns that the EU will now cause on the other side of the pond ...
It's worth pointing out that, back in August 2016, a change in Youtube's Ad Friendly algorithm saw an untold number of videos flagged for the following Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown The two things that pissed most creators off about this was not just the fact that Youtube had not informed them of this, but the change was actually implemented sometime around mid-2015 (again without informing everyone) and the mass demonetisation of videos was due to the algorithm coming online and the way that it firebombed any video whose annotations was one of the flagged terms and that was that. While the Alex Joneses of the world decided this was "proof" of the liberal elite censoring their views it clearly wasn't as channels on both sides of the debate were hit and, to be honest, it was more the left-leaning channels that were hit because (in one example) somebody had "brock turner rape case" as a video annotation and that single tag managed to set off two flags, as if the video was graphic descriptions/images/footage of it. Strangely they walked back that one, which may or may not have something to do with the countless news channels having a platform on their service. That's the problem with Youtube, they want the maximum profit for the minimum effort, hence they rely on algorithms that are as prone to errors are they are misuse, because if they want to make a profit that means less manual oversight and more assuming an algorithm will take care of it for you. It does need to be pointed out that Youtube already has a review process so there's a gap between a video being uploaded and it going live, which is why a lot of Youtubers bulk upload videos and use the queue system so they can meet their schedule
The problem with youtube is that in trying to be "right on" by acting as a publisher (outside the LAW) on who / what can be uploader/ed, it conflicts with the pure business of being the content platform provider. And publishers have certain liabilities/obligations, which the likes of youtube attempt to evade by claiming what they do is a "private company" matter. Now the EU via its copyright directives are effectively stating that youtube IS the publisher, with financial responsibilities therein. Automated algorithms have NOTHING to do with this.
Except the algorithms DO have something to do with this, because with Youtube's algorithm recently beginning to automatically flag content that looks like it breaches copyright in spite of being within Fair Use, that certainly looks a lot like Youtube are rolling out an algorithm to cover their backside - which takes us right back to what I said at the start, where getting rid of any and all liability for copyright violations was one of Google's two major priorities when buying Youtube. Going off on a slight tangent, and because there's nowhere else to crowbar this into the conversation, I've also seen a particularly clueless doomsayer claiming that the EU will kill of the medium of fanfiction with this move, which is utterly absurd on two levels. First of all there's the fact that the majority of fanfiction is protected by Fair Use due to being transformative in nature, while in legalese the usual way people try and shut down fanfiction is to try and claim that the fanfiction is costing the studio/network/publisher money and that's where these cases almost always fail (especially as 90% of fanfiction is free) However this doesn't make fanfiction exempt from Fair Use, for example there was a particularly famous Twilight fanfiction that basically lifted the entire story and used the same characters with the only real difference being various sex scenes added throughout the plot - so the writer's only solution to keep their meisterwerk available was to publish the same story with the same plot beats in the same place while adding a couple of minor tweaks, with the most obvious of which being to change the names of the main characters from Bella Swann and Edward Cullen to Anastasia Steele and Sebastian Grey. So if Article 13 could do a number on EL James' bank account, that'd be appreciated...
The latest outlook for after a no-deal Brexit - this time from sources that not even the most brainless Euro-sceptic can challenge - paints a really worrying picture. For fecks sake, UK - just abort the departure, say sorry for all the trouble and costs caused and let's all move on. Put it all down to fake news, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage! Unfortunately, the latest utterings from No 10 remind me of the scenario of a man holding a gun to his own head and threatening to shoot if he doesn't get his way!
You appear to be saying that youtube are already visibly testing algorithms that will fully comply with the coming EU directives, That implicitly means they concede that they are a content publisher and not a content enabling platform.
By this, can we assume that the "picture" was "painted" with nothing that relates to trading under WTO rules ...
Has everyone been enjoying the BBC coverage of the Tory/Orban story? No? Is that because there hasn't been any?
The British Empire bows to nobody. This is the problem - a superiority complex, a lack of humility and an inability to see the reality of the situation. Because of Empire, it's so ingrained in our culture that we are better than everyone else in every respect. There is little justification for the claims that we are better off on our own. But the presumption that we are is something the majority are not even prepared to consider.
It's long been suspected that certain corporations use their own algorithms to trawl Youtube to mass flag anything the algorithm sees as infringing copyright, certainly this appears to be the case with the CinemaSins examples I mentioned, but it certainly seems to be the case that Youtube themselves have a similar algorithm in order to pre-empt this - which means it's feasible for a channel to get ****ed over twice. Case in point, somebody was livestreaming their podcast via Youtube and they discussed Alex Jones' social media terminations, and they were actually defending Youtube for nuking his channels from orbit, yet because they tripped an automated flag the livestream got killed immediately while the next ninety minutes of the podcast was basically them ranting about Youtube inbetween getting a manual admin on the phone to fix this as nuking the livestream ****ed with their channel in a number of ways
https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...ungary-part-decade-far-right-alliances-europe Sounds about right.
