Can I just point out, you don't want to see those videos, now consider the impact on an employee expected to spend 7-8 hours a day watching this stuff?
There really isn't an easy solution. Just have to wonder on the mentality of the person uploading?
Though one feature I would be grateful for, across all platforms, the ability to pick the subject. I don't want to see many of the video topics served. But there seems to be little in the way of control to simply block a topic.
Accidently saw someone being decapitated in an RTA on Reddit a few months ago, not something I go looking for. I assume these things are done deliberately by the poster(s)- while I can't remember what sub-forum I was looking at I don't use it for anything controversial so deffo would not have been somewhere you'd expect to see that.
It seemed real but hard to say as closed it down as soon as my brain processed what I was looking at but I'm not really minded to go back and scrutinise it for its authenticity.
I'm 43 and it was unpleasant to watch so its a worry if these things are appearing regularly for literally anyone at any age to see.
We've just ditched Spotify Family as it turns out the podcasts are basically just Tiktok. Cue daughter not sleeping because she'd gone from watching funny videos to creepy ones. Hoping Tidal is better.
Facebook can’t check all uploads. They should check all recommendations before they serve them up.
it turns out the podcasts are basically just Tiktok
Sorry, what?
Cue daughter not sleeping because she’d gone from watching funny videos to creepy ones. Hoping Tidal is better.
What makes you think she won't continue to watch stuff on Spotify with ads? You're not really fixing anything here.
Any of the big platforms could, if forced, validate content BEFORE making it available to users. There is nothing which compels content to be available immediately.
It should be relatively easy* to stick ever piece of content uploaded to YT etc in an auto-moderation queue and classify it before making it available to the public/users and those user should be forced to "opt in" to receiving such content.
Who cares if there's some small delay between content being uploaded and actually being available to view 🤷
Anyway, I have regular purges of content on IG and report anything I don't want to see eg I've reported golf videos as "offensive" content as I simply have no interest in that subject matter - it seems to work. And I'm also careful with who I follow (usually just bike specific or trail builders)
What makes you think she won’t continue to watch stuff on Spotify with ads? You’re not really fixing anything here.
It's a known problem, apparently. We have parental controls in place but there's no way to turn off videos.
Right, but it still doesn't answer my question, what's stopping her accessing it without a family plan in place?
We went through something similar with our daughter and had to get the message across that she shouldn't be watching inappropriate content. She also has no screens at bed time.
Still none the wiser on the TikTok thing...
You're right, it's mostly about education and lessons to be learned. No screens in bedrooms; talk to us about anything that bothers you; all that.
That's fine. The internet is full of rubbish but this feels like the narrow end of a wedge. I'm not entirely clear on the link between Spotify canvas and Tiktok/YouTube but it's not one I was expecting. Binning Spotify is probably an overreaction but Tidal feels better anyway. They pay performers more at least.
Binning Spotify is probably an overreaction but Tidal feels better anyway. They pay performers more at least.
Spotify is rapidly becoming a general streaming service and moving away from specifically music, plus as you say they pay artists bugger-all. Tidal or Apple Music are just music, although I understand there is a podcast function available in Apple Music, but I’ve no idea if it has links to TikTok - I somehow doubt it. I subscribe to Apple One, mainly for the Music and Cloud storage, I have zero interest in podcasts, but the Apple Family subscription I might imagine to have tighter controls over access to things like podcasts and video content, mainly because of Apple’s tight control over content from 3rd-parties; although 3rd-parties are doing their utmost to start shoving their content into places where people don’t necessarily want it.
If I wanted endless amounts of crap from Google, then I’d access it via Google’s various portals - until Google gets bored and shuts them down, like it’s about to do with driving aids in its navigation apps… 🤷🏼
With Spotify you need to make sure you use the Spotify Kids app until they’re old enough to cope with anything. Just having a Family plan doesn’t give any sort of parental control, it just makes it a bit cheaper for multiple users.
Where Spotify does lack is catering for 12-16 age group. Not really old enough for unfettered access to everything on Spotify, but too old for the curated content on the Kids app.
Any of the big platforms could, if forced, validate content BEFORE making it available to users. There is nothing which compels content to be available immediately.
Well part of their offering is live video which by its nature requires real time! Even excluding this why should there be an arbitrary delay for me uploading some rather dull technical video? Too much content to practically review - and presumably 99.9% of content is fine anyway. Algorithms (AI or simple rules) should be able to spot 95% of the dodgy content quickly, but users who want to post bad shit are clever - say you first N videos get checked the will soon learn this and then post innocuous stuff for them.
It should be relatively easy* to stick ever piece of content uploaded to YT etc in an auto-moderation queue and classify it before making it available to the public/users and those user should be forced to “opt in” to receiving such content.
are you prepared to pay for YT? Do you think YT competitors would emerge specifically to target the uncensored market?
are you prepared to pay for YT? Do you think YT competitors would emerge specifically to target the uncensored market?
Well you could say that already exists but good luck with commercial legs for it .
Any of the big platforms could, if forced, validate content BEFORE making it available to users. There is nothing which compels content to be available immediately.
I'm with you on this.
There shouldn't be an absolute compulsion to deliver every bit of content imaginable without a technical barrier of some sort.
I don't for one minute believe they can't scan for restricted material before it's compressed for delivery. Where is good AI when you need it?
You soon get sussed for commercial music!
Most content on YouTube is barely watched. Most YouTube creators are barely making any money at all. Of the ones who are making money, very few of them are making enough to cover their costs, fewer still are making a living.
It strikes me that a bit of quality control and barriers to entry wouldn’t be a bad thing.
I’m not entirely clear on the link between Spotify canvas and Tiktok/YouTube but it’s not one I was expecting.
I'm still waiting for you to explain what you think the link is. It's your statement I'm having a hard time understanding.
it turns out the podcasts are basically just Tiktok.
An exaggeration, but as bensales says it's not suitable for 12-16 year olds (mine are 11 and 13) as it's too easy to find content which is inappropriate. I could see her getting sucked in by the funny stuff and while the creepy stuff probably isn't that bad, I don't know what else is on there. I know there are plenty of teenagers who do use tiktok, and I worry about them too tbh.
Oh, and I saw a video of a beheading on reddit maybe 15 years ago that I'm never going to forget 🙁
are you prepared to pay for YT?
As it happens, I already do
Do you think YT competitors would emerge specifically to target the uncensored market?
Where did I say the content is censored? I said was that users must opt in to be able to view certain types of content. Frankly, who gives a f++k about the financial impact of Alphabet or Metas bottom line. They have enough cash and resources to take the hit and fix the problems they've caused.
are you prepared to pay for YT?<br />As it happens, I already do
interesting - do you still find them serving you content you don’t want and find grossly offensive?
Do you think YT competitors would emerge specifically to target the uncensored market?
well your sentence was missing some letters/words so I had to guess what you meant! But you seemed to be saying YT should moderate all content, but people could choose to view unmoderated content. That seems to give YT a significant degree of editorial control, ie censorship.
<br />Where did I say the content is censored? I said was that users must opt in to be able to view certain types of content.
you already largely can, and if you don’t like the service they offer you aren’t compelled to keep going there, never mind paying them cash for the privilege.
<br />Frankly, who gives a f++k about the financial impact of Alphabet or Metas bottom line. They have enough cash and resources to take the hit and fix the problems they’ve caused.
as I said a few pages ago, probably all of us - unless you don’t have any pensions, etc.
But you seemed to be saying YT should moderate all content, but people could choose to view unmoderated content. That seems to give YT a significant degree of editorial control, ie censorship.
I'm saying all content could be/should be "auto-classified" - I'd be surprised if the capability doesn't already exist (or something similar isn't already used to serve up existing content based on their fabled "algorithms"). And that ANY content has to pass thru this auto-classification system before being available to end users. (This would, possibly, incentivize providers to provide as near real time auto-classification).
And specific "opt-in" controls provided at login.
I'd be ok for certain exceptions for "live broadcast" scenarios for some "licensed/authorized" users and/or reducing "live" to near real-time (like TV typically has a few seconds delay; again, incentivize the providers to fix the problem)
as I said a few pages ago, probably all of us – unless you don’t have any pensions, etc.
Meh. Of course I have a pension (and I'll be drawing it pretty soon!) but it's a tracker so I doubt a significant percentage of the value is in Alphabet or Meta, and even if it is, I doubt such changes would make any material difference. Of course, if you choose your own stocks and choose to invest in this type of provider, you're dancing with the devil anyway and you could always dump or short them 🤷
Of course they could. My employer has somewhere between 25 and 30 billion euro revenue a year, about 2 billion profit, and has nearly 300k employees who get paid a hell of a lot more than minimum wage.
And I bet, assuming your company is publicly traded, that number of employees will be about the bare minimum required in order to maintain/grow profit etc. Even if the CEO of YouTube cared enough that they wanted to employ another 250k content moderators they are beholden to shareholders (whether it's Alphabet's or whoever's) and their board. Any CEO who suddenly causes a $5b /year drop in profit (without it being due to a regulatory requirement) won't be around long.
Any CEO who suddenly causes a $5b /year drop in profit (without it being due to a regulatory requirement) won’t be around long.
I'd vote for regulatory requirement but I can't see any US or UK government having the balls to try it, though the French or EU may be more likely 😄
So my facebook short video things have hitherto been cats on robot vacuum cleaners, kitesurfing and wingsuit flying with the odd bike related vid.
Today when quickly scrolling to find if anyone on the local news site knew why my daughters bus time had changed I saw a woman hit and killed by a speeding car.
Jeez. WTF. Please report it.
I’d vote for regulatory requirement but I can’t see any US or UK government having the balls to try it, though the French or EU may be more likely 😄
if any one country introduced that requirement, a service would simply pull out of it as there's not enough profit in advertising in one market to pay for the $5bn in costs. I doubt there's even enough profit in all markets to cover that - revenue may be $28bn but I bet their margins are relatively small
I’m saying all content could be/should be “auto-classified” – I’d be surprised if the capability doesn’t already exist (or something similar isn’t already used to serve up existing content based on their fabled “algorithms”).
there is probably some degree of analysis already! But contrary to the media impression AI isn’t actually that smart - there will be false positives and false negatives. You can tune the algorithm to either be very safe - then you piss off legit content providers who are blocked for no good reason, and run up your operating costs dealing with their appeals OR you can tune it to let some stuff through because users can report offensive stuff, and you’ll need processes and staff for those reports anyway because some users will report stuff you believe is acceptable. And replacing AI with humans is not the solution as humans watching hours of footage will not be 100% robust at applying a somewhat subjective threshold either.
And specific “opt-in” controls provided at login.
You opt in by going to YouTube - it’s not compulsory. Using auto play definitely isn’t.
I’d be ok for certain exceptions for “live broadcast” scenarios for some “licensed/authorized” users and/or reducing “live” to near real-time (like TV typically has a few seconds delay; again, incentivize the providers to fix the problem)
AI comes at huge expense, requires masses of energy - running real time AI on all live YouTube would be crazy! “Licensed” users would be much easier but someone is then making an arbitrary decision on who is good and who is bad and therefore likely to post good/bad content in the future. If you don’t like their current approach stop paying them money.
as I said a few pages ago, probably all of us – unless you don’t have any pensions, etc.
Meh. Of course I have a pension (and I’ll be drawing it pretty soon!) but it’s a tracker so I doubt a significant percentage of the value is in Alphabet or Meta, and even if it is, I doubt such changes would make any material difference. Of course, if you choose your own stocks and choose to invest in this type of provider, you’re dancing with the devil anyway and you could always dump or short them
i think you may be underestimating the impact across the whole tech sector, and then the ripple effect across other markets if governments were to suddenly start introducing regulations that meant their profits slashed. It’s an uncomfortable truth that most of us ignore as we berate “corporate greed” that the biggest shareholders in those firms are often pensions funds.
Yeah, AI is hugely data and processing intensive with inaccurate results for long tail categorisation.
AI is already scanning your uploads, if you put copyright music in there it'll block the upload, I bet if you try to just upload porn it'll get caught too.
Scanning for someone being shot vs someone's 6th form drama project of someone being shot is a lot harder
"Jeez. WTF. Please report it. "
I've no idea how you do that and quite frankly I don't care. Why should it be on me. To report it would mean trying to find a vid I immediately and instinctively clicked away from which would presumably mean I have to see it again as well as nudging the algorithm once more.
As I only use facebook for local news which I can get elsewhere and selling the odd thing I've just deleted the app.
I’ve no idea how you do that and quite frankly I don’t care. Why should it be on me. To report it would mean trying to find a vid I immediately and instinctively clicked away from which would presumably mean I have to see it again as well as nudging the algorithm once more.
Well don't complain then - its only there because other people have all been "not my problem" too.
In the Facebook App - on a "reel" there are three dots in the bottom right - it brings up a menu allowing you to:
- Find support or report reel
- Ask why you are seeing this
- Hide the reel and see less like it (not report it just "retrain" the algorithm that you want less of this).
Alternatively you can click the three dots above the carousel of shorts to change settings there.
But if you saw a video you didn't even mean to play then you probably want to go:
Menu (bottom right) > Settings and Privacy > Settings > Media > Autoplay > "Never autoplay videos".
i would really prefer if you could turn off the "shorts" functionality.
I use FB for keeping in touch with family and friends, but end up getting dragged down a rabbit hole of 15 second dopamine hits too easily.
Genuine question ive wondered:
There are lots of "content creators" who post content that is basically held up by them flashing their bums and more to camera. One i can think of specifically rabbits on about her chavved up VW Polo. "follow me while i change the brake pads on my car", but then proceeds to give the viewer an eyeful in the process. Every, Single, Video. The car is not the "star" of the show, shall we say.
Question: Where is the line between "content creator" and "sexworker?". Not a criticism of a chosen career, perse. Does a stripper describe themselves as a "dancer"?
