I think the real problem here is that you can't edit, ban, and promote specific content and then say that you aren't responsible for any of the content. You can't have it both ways.
@@ehtresih9540 Only SLIGHT defense in terms of promoting specific content is that in that case, they are actively acting as a publisher for things like the Trending tab (which has been proven to be manual, not algorithmic) and general recommendations are as a platform. However, when they have terms of service as a platform, and proceed to moderate content with a bias, not equally applying the rules... that's when there's a conflict of platform/publisher. I've seen things on UA-cam breaking TOS that never should been allowed, and other things banned for no real reason. A good example is the current RT Game situation. Uneven application of moderation. While I do not follow such things, I am sure that there is content from corporations that breaks TOS, but isn't banned, while individuals...
Exactly, the "Good Faith" position, is "you can do one, or the other. Promote, or Suppress". If you start doing both then people start to question the reasoning behind it
I feel so bad for many youtubers especially rtgame. He posted just today of how youtube took down nearly half of his videos without warning and barely consulting him about it. He also mentioned how youtube policy is really vague that not even the employees of youtube itself can completely understand it and because of the vagueness it allows to anything they want depending on what random interpretation they have.
I can speak from firsthand experience that UA-cam creator support is an absolute nightmare to deal with and their policies are intentionally vague enough to use a scapegoat for virtually anything.
I found it odd how this is the first video now recommended as if UA-cam wanted me to see this since you're very much on their side. I do believe they shouldn't be held accountable for user uploads but they also need to be reminded to uphold their terms of services and remove blatant nudity on reels and other violent videos in a more precise manner.
I agree with you. I believe perhaps UA-cam needs to instead focus on demonetizing, deplatforming, and not allowing to be recommended videos that are dangerous or against their own terms of service. Especially the subject that made this lawsuit considered in the beginning. It’s understandable why they’re under attack but I think that they need to control their safety regulations more and hopefully will do so from this threat.
@P De youtube can already take down any video they want with little to no reason. I expect this also could be a ploy to give them stricter control over the influencers. Essentially making a new Twitter Badge but for all different forms of media. If you get one of these new badges you'll be in their algorithm if you stay good. Kinda scary how this can play out. So I just hope it doesn't go through.
It's not going to help youtube that they censor constitutionally protected speech. Gun channels, for example, get suppressed despite it not being illegal or even against TOS. These are beyond the morally objectionable standard of the moderation they're protected to do.
@@pde8444 one of the reasons this lawsuit is being held against them is BECAUSE they've been demonetizing, deplatforming, and not allowing to be recommended videos on things they disagree with, they currently have the powers of a publisher with the protections of a platform, THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE ONE AND STICK WITH IT!
Agreed, youtube hosts many creators and shouldnt get blamed fir the bad stuff that is one it. However, there should be SOME regulations to the stuff that is on here because kids are on youtube a lot as well.
The only problem I have against the algorithm is if it becomes to divisive to obscure/promote content based on a narrative. I miss the old days of youtube where it was easier to fall down rabbit holes of weird stuff and inconsistency. But nowdays, the only videos I ever see are those from content creators doing it for a living, and recommended videos no matter how hard I attempt to divert from subjects or my typical viewing, it just attempts to loop me back. It almost feels like the content recommended to me is like a hard aim assist snapping between 2 objects on either side when you're just trying to aim down the middle.
The fact jardon complains about the UA-cam algorithm for not recommending his videos but makes this video that the UA-cam algorithm praises is hilarious
"If you can't beat them, you join them". I know nothing about this channel's content or beliefs btw, just thought the phrase above was fitting of the situation.
As a law student in the UK, you have described that perfectly. Its really important to make sure that the masses understand the laws that are going to be affecting them, and having someone in your position explain it the way you did, without dumbing it down or making it seem like you need a degree to understand it, is the best way of spreading awareness
The idea that this is all about whether the algorithm can exist is a dumbing down. It's actually about whether UA-cam can continue censoring users and violating their right to free speech with impunity. It's about whether social media platforms in general can do this, at the behest of governments, under the guise of creating a "safe" online space.
"The masses"? I feel extremely sorry for anyone who utilizes your dubious legal services. Companies should absolutely be held accountable for what their algorithm endorses and presents to viewers. The fact that youtube is preparing an amicus brief, and fearmongering so many youtubers into pushing their narrative on something that really doesn't affect them in any way. It doesn't prevent UA-cam from having algorithms or anything like that, it just ensures that they have reasonable parameters.
As a normal person in the world, the fact that laws need a specific language learnt to be understood, the juridic language, means laws aren't meant for commons to comply. It's like history teachers. They only perpetuate their own profession.
@@gorkyd7912 I wished this was what was explained in this video which unfortunately now will give ppl the wrong point of view. Apparently youtube staff has been reaching out to different creators to get them to tell ppl to push back against this lawsuit cause of the repercussions that will ensue.
This isn't the only thing they are arguing in the Lawsuit. They are also arguing that because they are allowed to censor whatever they deem as hate or misinformation (even when what is shown or said is proven fact) without any repercussions that they themselves are now editorializing the content on their platform which would mean that Section 230 would not apply to platforms such as UA-cam.
This 💯. In particular by not applying moderation uniformly (ie. Certain channels can show and discuss certain topics, while others cannot) they are clearly editorializing as a publisher would.
This has been said for years but they still get their tax break because they have the best people on payroll to keep that tax break and make their t&Cs deliberately vague. I really hope this changes, would love to see YT get outed in public for this stuff.....we shall see
@@Natendo_Switch They wont be changing 230 at all. They would simply be ruling that UA-cam does not comply with it. UA-cam can either comply and moderate in “good faith” or they can be sued as a publisher. Any negative impact from this would lay solely at UA-cam’s feet. They are choosing to editorialize and not comply. They would be choosing to enact whatever austerity measures they need to move forward as a publisher.
I love that whenever content from Captain Sparklez shows up in my feed out of nowhere it's always something that immediately stressed out by but am very quickly re-chilled by everything about this blessing of a man.
Sad part is we point this kind of stuff out to UA-cam, Google, and Susan so they had the opportunity removed it. Instead of listening, they act like they are deaf and ignored. If only they listen to us, this nightmare could have been prevent!
Time and time again, right? It is their own fault that this is happening now, the bullet and gun have been there for years and now Gonzalez readies their finger on the trigger.
@@wrongthinker843 Speech on both sides, actually. Criticism towards anything incorrect or non-complete is often seen as "cancel culture" and gets banned off of conservative platforms. If conservatives critiqued things, however, they tend to be fine since they use more vague terms and loopholes, which is why most punished people are more left-leaning, even on UA-cam. It's been a problem since around 2014 on the entire internet.
The largest problems i have with algorithm recommendations personally tends to be when it tries to get me to watch things ive already watched, or recommendations so far outside the content of any channel im subscribed to that i say to myself consciously "why am i getting this" To a lesser degree theres also things that show up because of one video a friends showed me but ive not been grabbed hard enough to follow. sometimes a video is erroneously marked under "for kids" and while im still watching it because, well its NOT, the sweeping shift in recommendations feels like it gives me brain damage I want to believe youtube is capable of following common sense and personally enforcing their tos, but also making sure innocents dont get caught in the crossfire. their automatic content moderation systems have proven over and over to be unreliable, marking things as "made for kids" when theyre very clearly not, striking down entire videos for monetization or just entirely because of miniscule clips and bits used in good faith despite sometimes months of hard work, and even worse on the other side of the glass when appeals to get the team to rreverse or even look into the situation at all are met with silence or robotic responses that "we see no problem has occurred" and thats crushing to all the hard work that people have put in. PS; had a thought after the fact i should have clarified from the start, Its truly absurd to think that such a corporate giant can't spare the manpower to just add more of a human touch to things. Yes the algorithm is a broken mess, No we wouldnt be better off without it, but there should be some level of ongoing input to ensure a better experience for all types of users: content hungry consumers, creative types, niche interests and interesting rabbit holes, etc. Tell a purely logic based robot to protect the company from sitting on wet paint on a bench, theres no guarantee it wont opt to destroy the bench rather than suggesting the company sit on another, less wet bench
Honestly, I hope that's where the trial ends up going. As that is UA-cam claiming what the videos are, and still letting them publish. So they are saying "yes this is allowed here, but only to this audience" which is very similar to reviews sent in to newspapers, that get published the next day. So hopefully, this allows the chokehold that is on creators to be relieved. Help alleviate demonetization, and the COPPA issue, that is in fact still an issue. We'll have to wait and see.
The scope isn't know completely, but this will definitely set the standard, and I've watched a few content creators disappear due to UA-cam acting like a true publisher, rather than just a platform. The idea this is 'Gonzales vs Google' is actually a valid title, because I side with the people who think that UA-cam should be split from Google and have to make money based on itself and not have the bottomless coffers to draw from, and therefore not be required to worry about money at all, so as to push some agenda they see as correct. If they had to think about how they would continue to make money, killing any content creator for any reason would hurt their bottom line, so the algorithm would be tuned accordingly. We have absolutely no idea how it's actually tuned currently, and this case might shed some light on that
I think a mixture of algorithms and actual manual reccomendation would be best. Humans working with the algorithm may give us and youtube algorithm programmers more insight into the shortcomings of the algorithm, and could overall make the algorithm better faster.
he did a good job being cryptic i didnt understand what he was saying as far as what prompted the lawsuit, it is funny how much twitch stuff is reccomended on youtube
@@levioverturf9435 "UA-cam acting like a true publisher, rather than just a platform." This This right here is the heart of the problem We need a lawsuit to address this, but this lawsuit ain't it, sadly
Any changes Google does ends up over correcting, see videos where kids are involved and comments are locked. If anything does go south, I hope people have a backup career path.
This is indeed a concerning case. Also, one thing to note. Since this is a Supreme Court case, they don’t have to care about precedent. They often take it into consideration, but if they disagree they can just override precedent, which does make things even scarier.
They are also (by majority) a gang of republican party operatives without spines or regard for the law, so the real point is what the criminals in the GOP think the internet should look like.
@@ai1410 that doesn’t matter. This isn’t a case that is politically influenced at all, because you would know there would be political lobbying for this case because it would be in the news
The problem here is Google, Facebook, etc. have wildly exceeded “good faith” of Section 230(c)(2) by moderating well beyond the restrictions mentioned and, more importantly, not applied their moderation standards uniformly. Some creators content is moderated, while others make the “Trending” despite videos being similar in content. This is almost by definition editorializing, as a publisher would.
I think if this were to go through, google would just do it on the US-side of things. All tech companies do the nonsense of "oh this is illegal in the US or EU or China?... Well, guess it's time to act on *only* those servers."
Every tech company already has different rules on different places. Most have agreements with repressive regimes to censor non approved information as well.
It's absurd that nine senior citizens have the power to demolish huge social media platforms based on one case. And justice Elena Kagan has admitted that she and her colleagues don't know much about the internet. I'm surprised more UA-camrs aren't talking about this case. Especially those with a large number of subscribers.
I doubt the worst case scenario you mentioned will happen. This would have implications on massive companies, such as Facebook and Tiktok. Suddenly, the second largest market for these tech giants would be gone. Blackrock and the chinese government won't let it happen
@@void405 that was always going to be overturned at some point because new cases and exceptions get discovered. even biden said it would be overturned eventually ten years ago. its just politicians sat on their ass for decades, even when they had what they needed to turn in into law with no obstructions. it being overturned also means nothing cause again, it wasn't a law, just a ruling. plus pretty much both sides benefited from it being overturned, since it gets people out to vote for them and brings in donations. and just like that, in this situation, if it effects how much the politicians and the big donators like google, facebook, and tiktok make, then yeah they will suddenly magically become competent... lol
Yeah, I honestly don't think that this is going to really change anything. Even if the Google looses, chances are the SCOTUS will recommend that a system similar to DMCA takedown notices, where platforms will be given prior notice in order to remove the content before an actual lawsuit happens. And again, this is a big "if" it will even go through, I highly doubt this will be the case.
But still don't think they will be able to stop everything. Just like DMCA, they are ppl who will work just for finding these videos and take YT to court with it. Except if the supreme court gives a looonnnnggggg time for YT to set a system that stops 100% everything. Wish I will be surprise if that happens easily.
The problem here similar to things like Coppa is the very long string of Ifs that are needed to make such a scenario happen. Which is my major complaint with anything about ruling on the internet it doesn't go anywhere significant because there is to many ifs that need to happen to put UA-cam or any social media into that dystopian state even if google loses. On top of the fact that is not considering local by the state ruling on the matter which can further muddy the water so the efficacy of this bill is gonna be pointless at worst and questionable at best even in worst outcome territory.
I think the important point to understand is that there is a line between moderation and curation. If UA-cam's content suggestion algorithm is PROMOTIING the access to illegal material, meanwhile UA-cam is removing content that is clearly legally fine, but does so under the guise its "borderline content" policies, this might as well be curation and should not be protected by section 230, as UA-cam is effectively acting as a curator or a publisher. If sites want to have curated content, they should be more careful about the content that even gets to be curated and recommended to you. This isnt a complicated issue, its just a volume issue. Nobody can watch all of the content that arrives on UA-cam obviously, but they don't have to, they only need to be able to curate enough safe content to allow to be recommended.
YT having a content recommendation engine isn't the issue. The real issue is that this case is also going to have ramifications covering YT content suppression/removal practices, wherever you fall on that discussion. (and always remember, social media platform companies are not looking to improve your user experience, their interest is purely increasing your user engagement. Any recommendation/suppression/removal of content by a platform is driven ultimately by how THEY want you to use the platform.)
wrong, since taking a class on it i have (unfortunately) gained more insight into how social media sites/companies work. to improve user experience is to gain more users, which is to gain more profit. user experience and user engagement sort of go together. put simply if users dont have a good experience they wont go past the main page, they leave and dont come back. thats profit loss. so they want to make you have a good experience while also forcing you down a path that makes them money- ads, clicks, purchases ect.
@@agelessrebellion8271 sorry if my explanation gave the wrong impression that they don't care about user experience, my statement was just meant to reinforce that nothing takes priority over maximizing engagement. If there is a choice between the two, engagement weighs more heavily, which means how they want you to use the platform is overall more important than how you would like to use the platform.
@AgelessRebellion that's great in all but humans are prone to hate watching. Just because content will be viewed doesn't mean it's enjoyable, like the old system was.
@@agelessrebellion8271 In practice that's not the entirety of how it works. A lot of (sometimes by far the most) popular content creators were knocked off platforms, including this one, for unofficially stated specific reasons. They didn't do anything shady. Others just stated things that maybe someone corrupt doesn't like exposed, but would be irresponsible to not expose. Often they're not kicked off directly but shadow banned. Algorithms were tuned to cut their engagement and "mysteriously" unsubscribe people who subscribed to their channels and "demonetized" meaning ads not allowed to play for their channels.
I don't understand how the algorithm would recommend "yes, yes" videos, recommended videos are based on what YT thinks you're interested in, so doesn't the user have some part to blame if the viewer has been actively seeking similar content? Maybe I understood this all wrong, but how random was the event really? Think of it like this, when you first create a UA-cam account does the algorithm straight up feed you mainstream content or is it going to throw you into the deep dark if you know what I mean, again maybe I've completely misunderstood this situation, someone please enlighten me
I get recomended shit all the time that has nothing to do with what i watch. I dont know what version of the algerythm you get but its clearly not the same as the rest of us.
i heard stories about ppl who watch shorts get recommended with just pure hate instead of the kind of videos that same user actually watches. i even saw a technique where some people post s/h cotent with a specific title to avoid getting suspended. i think thats what hes referring to.
Social media platforms have been aggressively dancing on the thin line between platform and publisher for way too long. I really hope they are put into their place and are forced to make changes
So... you want to openly delist everything that is demonetised (and on current YT anything can be)? Remember how did this downward spiral of demonetising everything started.
@@cola98765 You're exactly what an internet answer is usually memed as - I like waffles - oh so you hate pancakes? No dude, tf is wrong with you? where do you get such an extremist take about delisting everything from what op said? jesus freaking dj raptor dude.
@@cola98765 They just need to apply moderation (the manual stuff) EQUALLY. People like RT Game get treated much differently compared to corporations, for example, false DMCA takedowns.
I don't know if this would destroy UA-cam, but it would absolutely destroy Tiktok. And since UA-cam is desperately trying to emulate Tiktok with Shorts, it will have a destructive effect here as well, above and beyond losing a recommendations page. Personally, I think it would be insane if this case was decided in favor of the plaintiff, but crazier things have happened with this court...
Exactly, which for tiktok you go to the site for the algorithm. I think since I’ve enjoyed watching UA-cam since the early years, the backbone was always colabs and stumbling upon things. Mainly cuz you trust one person and thus trust they’ll “bring on” someone who they like which we’ll like. Instead of a computer suggested things.
Hot take, but I think UA-cam is trying to purposefully crash their system and make it work poorly in order to foster animosity towards their platform being used for shorts. I think they want it to fail so they don't need to compete against tiktok
I mean, tumblr for the most part does not use algorithms to push any particular person- and what would show up on your dash that is using an algorithm can be turned off. Perhaps UA-cam could do something similar and make recommendations and such opt in instead of default, taking responsibility off of them and placing it on us to choose whether or not we want to see recommendations and whatever content lies within.
@@shapeshiftingpedro People acting like the algorithm being cut back is a bad thing don't understand the current situation, and only look at it from a 'i will lose money, and so will you' perspective. UA-cam will be better for this change.
@@Volvith in the short term maybe, but if youtube is forced to cut the algorithm back too aggressively (or if youtube overreacts), they risk killing any chance small channels have to grow, which would mean youtube can only last as long as the current big channels dont retire for, after that... no new content, becuase theres no channels left making it.
he didnt even tell people what the hell the lawsuit was about... Nothing on why it is going on, just fear mongering that this could "destroy youtube" The hell you thanking for? Obscurity?
@@paintballertw 1. He said he had to not describe the case and said what he was able to given what the content of the case is. 2. He said multiple times he was breaking down the worst case scenario for what could happen. No need to be rude.
@@paintballertw You don’t seem like you watched the entire video. Either that, or you got so lost in your fit of rage because a content creator described what he could about a case he was pulled into and described why he’s concerned that you missed a good portion of the video. Either way, why are you being an ass toward people in the comments over it? Why not just make your own comment and move on?
This is actually really ground breaking stuff. That little tiny law can make youtube go back to its original platform and that makes me happy. Especially with all the new rules coming from youtube out of nowhere.
The rules are probably an attempt to show that they are "taking steps" to better moderate their platform, while actually taking several steps back and away from actual moderation.
@@meyers0781 I still can't believe 'they' spent 100million on Bill Clinton sexual deviance investigation. But on 14million for 911 investigation. Off topic? Yes, but no. The mentality of these people still ring true today.
I enjoy seeing the growth you have had as a content creator. If you were to branch off to do more videos like this, I would watch the hell out of them.
The actual issue is that youtube often acts as a publisher not a platform. Ether by banning channels that did not align with youtubes standards, or by just demonetizing them (instead of letting the advertisers choose)
The issue is that they were forced to act like that due to the immense pressure done by mainstream media. Before that (pre-2016), youtube was a vastly different place, and it was nice. Everything went to crap when legacy media made public outcries about bad content found on youtube.
UA-cam literally has the authority to police its own website. It's right there in sec230. It is not acting as publisher when it kicks racists off the site.
@@Kutulhu Problem is when they aren't removing racially discriminatory content. Things that are perfectly legal are being removed based on what they deem good or bad. For example: News. Whether they are videos by Mainstream media being hosted by UA-cam or if they are videos made by independent journalists and reporters, It shouldn't matter. But for the last 5-7 years, videos done by CNN or FOX remain live and "Suitable" for all audiences but then the ones made by smaller independent channels aren't? Even if the content is virtually the same?
I think the real issue isn’t algorithms by themselves, rather the issue is with content throttling or boosting on UA-cam’s commands. If UA-cam does that, and it can be proven in court, then this will be (or at least, imo, should be) the main talking point. I personally do believe UA-cam throttle/boost content as they wish (content which follows ToS/has no clear violation). I don’t have any clearcut examples, but I do believe they do it, mainly because I’m cynical and skeptical of big corporations in general
i do have examples which is mainly of republican and conservative viewpoints. Anyone who trys to look at the truth of the many claims about Trump get censored and suppressed by youtube itself.
To summarize, the idea of an algorithm is fine. It's what could be recommended that's the problem. Did I understand correctly what you are, or what you are trying to, say? If not, I would like to know.
it's why the best case scenario is requiring these platforms to make their algorithms open-source, and fully disclose how content is recommended. I think it's reasonable to believe sites push certain content above others, and by requiring sites to be transparent, we can void these issues
@@Salt_Master_Queue the issue is that no one truly knows how these "algorithms" work. we don't know how content is pushed/suppressed. There could easily be a hidden "manual override" that allows someone to forcibly restrict certain kinds of content.
Literally any talk/late show clips channel. Nobody goes out of their way to watch those yet they're *ALWAYS* trending in the like top 20. Same for super sanitized content from family channels.
This is a genuinely a simultaneously interesting and concerning topic that I'm surprised I haven't heard about before this video. I'm interested to see how this unfolds given the COPPA situation in 2019.
I believe the problem here isn't the recommendation of content but what content is being recommended. It may be algorithmic, but the fact that the algorithm not only recognized the content but did not flag or suppress said content and instead *intentionally recommended it* is really, really bad. Think of it this way: just because the algorithm did something bad doesn't mean that it needs to be removed entirely, but it still did something bad, a suit like this is the kind of push that could *fix* the problem. You don't just throw away a shield because it let something through a hole, you patch the hole.
@@Lassoloc Well what's the alternative? Scrap the whole thing and basically destroy your entire service in the process? The only viable solution is either fix the existing algorithm or start fresh with a new one. I don't see a world in which rational minds decide to basically nuke the internet because their tech either couldn't identify T-words, or actively endorsed them. Sparkles was right in that algorithms aren't inherently bad, and are in some ways vital, but by the very nature of the human experience, let alone the internet, they *cannot* be immutable. Change *needs* to happen, and this sort of thing motivates *good* change that makes the site better for everyone that isn't a monster, and hopefully makes it worse for those who are.
@@Lassoloc It wouldn't be. UA-cam would be forced into a trusted content provider method of content delivery. It would have to be so restrictive, it'd resemble crappy cable tv.
I’ve suspected for awhile that google has been using UA-cam content management as a test bed for AI in the same vein as their language processing chat bots. They’re trying to give an AI human level discretion but still at its core it’s programmed to manage the flow of UA-cam and what it’s users are watching so despite the policy swinging one way the experimental AI can be trained to the other with enough momentum online. A machine attempting to mirror a human understanding of objectionable or obscene would explain some of the bizarre behaviors from the content system especially recently
I can't believe they have to deal with this and they attacked their own community with the insane changes. What a great way to get your only lifeline on your side.
The fact that you're the only large content creator that has talked about this is INSANE. A primarily gaming channel no less. Regardless, thank you so much for covering this, I wouldn't have seen without it being recommended. I'm sure this case is going to be covered more probably throughout this month and the next and pick up traction, but hopefully things don't turn for the worse. UA-cam and Twitch are already a hellscape to traverse if you're trying to work your way up. This would effectively screw smaller, and even some of the relatively bigger channels over as well and set massive precedents. Like another comment said, I doubt China will let it slide considering what something like this would do to Tiktok with how dependent the site is on its algorithm.
“Is the recommended videos an endorsement like a newspaper endorsement” I never thought of that interpretation but that is 100% a viable interpretation and can literally go either way with this current Supreme Court
I haven’t seen you in forever and I don’t even think I’m subscribed, but I’m so happy I found this video. Thank you for informing, so far, 559k+ people about this subject; I really do hope that UA-cam doesn’t lose this case and can also learn from this case as well
I hope they lose the case. It will force them to correct their algorithm to be more natural and not demonontize or strike channels that have or say things that oppose youtubes views and beliefs. Any call to harm will still be taken down as it is not protected under freedom of speech, however videos of doctors presenting facts they don't like about rona can remain up, or an interview with a president they don't like will stay up.
@@MasterTrizzle Yeah exactly - losing this case would be great, because "the algorithm" basically lets google decide what everyone sees by tweaking it, if people had to grow their channels algorithmically it would mean people would have to get recommendations from actual people on social media, blogs, etc for new youtubers to follow - or youtubers could actually link to other videos that they like.
The basis of Netflix is also “recommendations”. If they recommend an “offensive” film, the user has a choice, as SHOULD be the case here. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
The difference is that Netflix is a publisher, not a platform. There are no random users posting movies to Netflix, so if they do decide to post something illegal (say a movie they don't have the rights to) they can be found liable. If some random user posts the same movie to youtube, youtube would not be liable.
@@shadowcalen but yt removing content means they are curating their website. So they act as a publisher in a way while enjoying the protections of section 230. And considering tech companies coordinate with each other to police each other's public square means it's censorship without calling it censorship. 230 was just as bad as the Patriot act was after 911. It's control in the guise of safety.
Motion pictures are protected as artistic expression. You can only sue a production company if the film depicts yourself in a slanderous way (documantary) or violates your copyright. So no, there is a reason you can still buy Hitlers book and watch the movie "Birth of a Nation".
Yes, "offensive" is a very individual term that is defined by each viewer separately. Anyone trying to curate what you should think is offensive is just trying to censor views they don't like and has nothing to do with protecting their viewer base.
It seems that what is going to trip up Google/UA-cam is that content moderation has been inconsistent. They've made it political when rules should have been enforced evenly across the board. In that regard, they've opened themselves up to the argument that they are acting as an editor/publisher rather than just a host site. If they act like a publisher then they can be treated as a publsiher. It's a difficult conundrum because of the "legal but harmful" content perspective. At the very least this kind of content must (in my opinion) be suppressed from minors. But beyond that, it's difficult to say what content should be allowed or not.
CaptainSparklez, the man who goes from “AWW MAN” to “Hey, here’s an explanation of how this lawsuit could affect UA-cam in the future without all of the legal mumbo jumbo.”
I bet the YT employees taught him that one Along with asking the viewers to side with YT because man, YT finally has a reason to get their shit together and now they are pretending they care about how you experience their platform
I don't want this to go through but it would be great to see companies forced to take some of their eggs out of the algorithm basket for once. But I know UA-cam wouldn't just revert to 2012 and would instead just implode. But sites nowadays are so hostile to users who want to choose what content they see. Twitter is utter hell to use unless you change the timeline settings from Home to Latest, and it fucking switches it back after some time. UA-cam seems to hate letting posts from subscribed channels be shown to you, and it's obvious that over the years they've been reducing agency over what channels you can and cannot be recommended to watch. Would just be nice to see all these algorithms curbed a bit, but as I said, UA-cam would just implode. Google wouldn't think of reverting to a subscription dominant service again.
I don't understand what this means, because UA-cam seems to me to be the best at letting you customize your content feed. They have nothing to gain from not giving you what you want (unless it's something that has the potential to hurt their money). The more you see something you like, the more you engage, the more money for them. My algo works pretty well, my homepage scares me because I usually end up down a rabbit hole of content I enjoy for hours. But what happens when you have 1000 + subscriptions? 3000 like I think I do now? How does the algo decided what to put up front? UA-cam introduced "notifications" a while ago, and some content creators complained without realizing that it was their best opportunity to stay in front of their users that might favor them. So you set notifications for the content you want to make sure you are up to date with the channels you want to see all the time. I actually put channels that don't update often or aren't that popular in that place. I don't need to put something like Linus Tech tips there because they are so huge, I always remember they are there, etc. I can click on any video in my sidebar and select "Not interested" or "Don't recommend channel". My general assumption is that algo sees this too and doesn't show you that kind of content anymore. Same for dislikes you place. The only other option is to create multiple channels for different content, so you can switch between based on what you want to see. I have one channel for studying and tech, one channel for home improvement, one channel for finance. My main channel (this one) remains for entertainment. Like I don't need home improvement videos on this channel. But I don't know how exactly you use UA-cam. One user to another, I'm curious.
@@YouAreStillNotablazeoh yeah that’s also what Im curious about. I feel like UA-cam has gotten very good at showing me the content they think I want to see from channels I’m suscribed to
I like true crime and watch true crime youtubers sometimes let youtube choose the next episode... more than once even if it is not even the next video youtube goes to mainstream 48 h or other huge crime show.... something to think about.
@@FlockFlysatMidnite Because there is no other website that monetizes videos from individual creators than can build up their own audience from nothing. Rather- no other website as popular. It is absolutely a monopoly, regardless of its niche percentage in market share for social media.
@@FlockFlysatMidnite name a popular Facebook star that makes a living from UA-cam. It’s not just about how much they make- it’s a monopolization in relevancy and who actually uses the websites. Also- Facebook pays you? Didn’t even know that was a thing, which speaks volumes
Yeah no UA-cam is so powerful and a massive monopoly upon the video sharing platforms that this will do nothing. Most is new policy that will effect only very specific group of videos
This is in the Supreme Court, this is the top level court that is very rare to see a Supreme Court case, so yeah this does have the power to change UA-cam in its entirety
@Timothy Crowther Let this be known that God, or Technoblade, has finally decided to cast judgement on Google due to its sins of Pride, Greed, Sloth, Envy, Gluttony, Wrath and, mostly, Lust. Only he can decide if UA-cam gets to stay at this point...
I think your comment towards the end was key: we've seen multiple of these types of situations over the last decade, and each time we got past them one way or another. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being the same.
I originally thought this was going to be about the censorship updates. I hope this turns out OK for UA-cams content creation community. Good luck Jardon!
Well, off everything they have done it’ll help some UA-camrs. While actively screwing over a lot of others. So not really sure how this would turn out. It’ll help a lot and hurt a lot either way it goes
@@misguidedsaint3693 Smaller creators are pretty much going to be screwed over if it goes wrong. Bigger creators are being screwed by censorship changes. At this point UA-cam might be fucked.
If UA-cam is no longer allowed to use an algorithm to recommend videos from creators you’re not subscribed to, then most likely there is going to be a huge boom in collaborations in order for creators to reach other creators audiences to compensate.
I wish for the same thing as you. But it's frustrating to see people miss the point of this lawsuit. It's not going to make UA-cam better. It's going to make UA-cam a million times worse. UA-cam will put a filter in the algorithm that will only recommend big companies. The reason why is that UA-cam has millions of Creators, and UA-cam doesn't know us. They don't know who is advertising "Yesyes" but in Spanish and backwards. But they know that big companies like Vice wouldn't do something like that. And so the big companies' videos will get promoted by the algorithm, while the smaller Creators will go unnoticed. This will make UA-cam worse than ever before.
Drama makes news, but for those concerned I doubt there’s reason to be worried here. If this actually went through it would jeopardize the operation of basically every streaming, video, and social media company. That is an enormous disruption the government doesn’t want, that these companies don’t want, and that no one will let actually happen. Because letting it happen to UA-cam sets precedent for twitch, Twitter, Facebook, literally all of them could be hit next. Google alone has enough pull to shut this down, never mind every other social media or user content platform in existence behind them. It’s just not happening.
The Supreme Court isn’t as simple as that though. They consider what goes with the constitution, what precedent has been set by similar cases, and occasionally what they feel is “correct” regardless of what is correct or in line with the constitution.
This is not about what companies want it is about what is legaly allowed and how UA-cam and all those social media platforms need to handle this in the future if the court deems that it is not allowed.
The argument “the government would never do that because companies would lose money” immediately loses all credibility when you recognize that we have over 8% inflation right now. Government gonna do what government gonna do.
I have a feeling that the old days of youtube group channels such as Machinima that posted other channels' content to increase their reach will be making a come back if the algorithm is cut back due to the case's outcome. Can't garner an audience through the much stricter/non existent algorithm? Join a group channel
@@Volvith By better days you mean group channels like machinima and defy media that held your channel hostage and take most of your revenue with exploitative contract ? Yeah better days
Man I am so glad this popped up in my feed. I haven’t seen a video by you in *years* !!! This case is crazy, and thank you for going into detail. Great to see you’re still active on UA-cam man! Happy new year!
To be fair SISI posts content on most platforms. They also PANDIK (I love that it comes out like that backwards I will never forget that) reporters to make their videos so high quality so dealing with this has more then 1 benefit
Enjoy network content only. That's basically what you'd be asking for wanting people to be able to sue google for the content served to them. In order to avoid an endless line of lawsuits, they'd have to be so restrictive that only absolutely trusted content would be served. As a result, channel growth would massively die off all over the platform. That'll kill channels that won't be able to afford to do it anymore as their views taper off. It'll funnel the content into large networks and turn youtube into on demand cable-like safe content.
@@Klust413 all these sites have been warned that if they kept moderating based on political biases it would come back to haunt them,this is the result of that
I was always under the assumption that the user that uploaded the video was the publisher, and that UA-cam was just the method of publishing said video.
That’s the general idea. A one to one comparison with tv or newspapers doesn’t fit, either, since a newspaper/TV curates and edits what it publishes whereas UA-cam doesn’t do that. A case could be made that the algorithm curates and promotes certain content over others and counts as some sort of edit (this bit chosen over all the other bits) and publish. I don’t think it will be a worst case situation, though.
normally yes, but youtubes plays the risky game of playing publisher when moderating content, 230 while not implemented this way is written so that what's protected as moderation is only illegal speech (true threats etc...) if youtube wants to guarantee it's status as a platform then it would step away from heavy handed moderation and essentially moderate by court order. otherwise it is acting as a publisher. which iirc is the general tone that scotus has been sending out regarding this case. i don't think algorithmic recommendations really have much to do with the case and unfortunately i think while Jordan is well meaning, YT has been selective in how they explained the situation to him.
I have lived through at least 3 UA-cam apocalypses (4 if you count the Canadian Bill C-11). You should ask a lawyer about it (maybe a UA-camr lawyer), because the plaintiff's argument is that Section 230 doesn't fully cover recommendations in their moderation protection; so, the review could go in the way that it ends up specifically extending the protection to the algorithm too. About the frivolous lawsuits argument, well, remember that those who file those lawsuit also need to pay for their own legal fees; and Google has a much higher budget than the haters.
bro.... there has NOT BEEN ANY "appocalypses" in youtube. jeez, stop being such a drama queen!!! UA-cam has been constantly making good changes to their website and their video sharing platform. They are doing amazing things to make youtube better for the viewers. It was NEVER intended for people to make money off of. it still is not intended for anybody to make money from, its supposed to be just for people to share videos with each other.
Setting precedent that 230 protection can be removed destroys online free speech in the states irrevocably. I don't like YT management, but this is a really bad take imo. Even if they have been acting as a publisher, the negative effects of them loosing 230 protection on the rest of the internet would be really terrible really quick, and basically just opens all websites that host user content up to infinite SLAP lawsuits while providing no value to anyone. (i would be interested to hear your reasoning on it though as i could be wrong)
Could we just have a new CaptainSparklez series where he just reads complicated law and then translates for us normal people?? This video helped me understand so much!
The difficulty is that he is presenting mostly what UA-cam's legal teams have provided him. I don't think he is trying to deceive anyone, but I think he's only been given one side of the argument. Some of the other comments here do a great job rolling up the side of the debate. Where you feel the truth lies is up to you, but certainly don't take one source as the truth, even if he's a great guy who would never intentionally deceive anyone.
Honestly I may be completely crazy here, but that doesn't sound all that bad. Currently the most annoying thing I find with you tube is it's extremely hard to explore and find content out of my little "bubble". It's nice and all but really If you keep everyone in their own bubbles of what they like and stop seeing the whole picture it can have catastrophic consequences like the case Gonzales is talking about. I think the fact of the matter is that it's not just about you-tube, this would affect social media and the internet as a whole, including advertisements. I mean think of all the scam ads that google gives you because they just get paid and ignore any implications. This would also force them to actually secure their advertisements rather than just take the money and shove it out there, no? I mean I work for a business and in IT and when someone clicks an ad (recommended by google "adsense") 90% of the time its a website with a bunch of fake virus pop ups. Yes, this would suck for the current environment we are in, short term would do a lot of damage but as someone who tries to think long term I think this would be extremely beneficial. Again may be completely crazy here.
They have over-optimized their recommendation algorithm to the point where it's barely usable. I have frequently ended up creating new UA-cam handles just so I can discover new channels. I wish they would switch back to the old algorithm.
Interesting that. thingy is how would people be able to see the whole picture, without algorithm recommendation, or just recommendation in the first place. I totally agree there are way too many scam ad and problematic ads that shouldn't be allowed on the site, and UA-cam must have been purposely ignoring them this whole time. What I am worrying the most is whether UA-cam will throw their users and creators down the bus, such as making the demonitise or reporting system even harsher or tighter. But no you aren't crazy, this might have a good outcome, if UA-cam wants to proceed that direction that is.
Giving bad faith actors a platform also has catastrophic consequences. And those consequences can end with people dead. I would gladly take being exposed to only my bubble if it means people who put others in danger are ready to be kicked out. Twitter refusing to ban LOTT; an account that has caused a threat at a children's hospital along with spreading misleading information and hysteria about minorities which will lead to violence. It has been stated over and over again, you can't tolerate intolerance because the intolerant will destroy you.
I find it curious that now because of this lawsuit that UA-cam is reaching out to you to get involved when it seemed like before they didn't treat you as a valuable content creator. It's like when a manager constantly forgets you when they take the entire department out for lunch except you but then when that manager has a problem that you can help them solve, suddenly you exist. smh
@nightmarelordgaming1993 only if you let it be. Advertisers will move to other platforms, and those sites will do what UA-cam did, minus the sell out to a mega Corp.
Did you not listen to what he says? If they win against Google that means EVERY similar site will have the SAME problem. It sets precedence for the entire entertainment industry.
@nightmarelordgaming1993 fine. But don’t complain when Führerin Susan of UA-cam and her stasi force you to sign contracts that make the 1.1 OGL of DND seem fair by comparison.
@@durrantmiller8810 the power will be broken up and more sites will exist and profit. UA-cam has held a technical monopoly for far too long. Don’t complain when ReichTube’s leader Susan makes you sign a contract that makes DND OGL 1.1 seem like a fair and reasonable deal.
Wow! This is huge. I'm glad your talking about it so some good might come out of it. I care about the content creators as I learn so much from them as well as learning something new. I had no idea this was going on until the algorithm shared your video with me. I think the pros outweigh the negatives in the case of having algorithms. I'm now a subscriber and will be following this topic on your channel. This makes a good case for all of us to get involved. Thanks for the video.
I hope you see the irony in your first introduction to this topic also being in favor of the algorithm. This is a very nuanced topic and if you think it's important then I would recommend you start searching. There are so many videos on the subject from many different perspectives.
I hope things get nicer and easier. There's been needed change and I hope people genuinely listen to the community and people who actually pay attention. Sounds concerning tho. I am rally worried about the lack of cybersecurity and genuinely holding platforms/individuals accountable for their actions 🍀🍀🍀
I'm old enough to remember how UA-cam's recommended video system worked before all this modern algorithmic stuff. Back then, recommended videos were simply based on the video you were currently watching. I think it matched tags, maybe title, and then ranked them based on views and comments. As such, everybody who watched a video would basically get the exact same recommendations, and people would frequently comment things like "like if you also came from Video X". The home page was filled with recently uploaded videos from your subscribed channels, and I also recall a section that would show you videos that were being favorited by other accounts that were subscribed to the same channels as you. I really, really preferred that system. It felt like youtube was more closely knit and actually had a community, where clusters of videos would exist that tied people together. And when a new video was uploaded, all your fellow subscribers would signal boost that content simply from watching it. I don't think youtube needs the modern algorithm. They could go back to a simpler system and everything would be just fine, maybe even better.
That would be a terrible system for someone like me as i watch all sorts of content from history to biology, gaming channels, esport video, law videos, Music Videos, videos about sciene and some that you cant really fit into any catergory aside of it being simpy enjoyable to watch. Then comes to aspect of watching people that speak a completly different language so there is that. Like it doesnt matter if there are other people with identical interests to me that howerver just dont watch polish or german videos. And to the majority of people that i watch i just dont subscribe to as i would otherwise have an infinite long subscription list. That system that you said is how it used to be would literally destroy youtube with how i use it. There is no way i would get the recomendation to all those topics im interested to simply from 'other people boosting these videos' actually 0% chance
@@roijoleil268 There are many alternatives that could be developed. There's already an explore tab by subjects. There's also user made playlists. I don't think anyone really uses those because the base algorithm is pretty darn effective, but such features could be improved upon and youtube could still be very functional.
I don't see how that would really be different in light of this lawsuit. That was still an algorithm feeding you recommended content. It was a much simpler algorithm, but I don't think that changes the question of who is legally responsible.
@@roijoleil268 Actually, it's EASIER to find a variety of content with the old system. These days, UA-cam does this annoying thing where you watch one video about a subject, and then your feed gets filled with videos like that for days. Doesn't matter what I'm watching RIGHT NOW, my recommended tab is still the same stuff as always. Old system: watch a different video, get different related videos. Watch something new = find something new. And if you aren't subscribing to channels that you like to watch, that's your problem, not UA-cam's. You're supposed to sub to channels whose videos you want to watch, that's the entire point.
How would not suggestion based social media work? Well ... I like the idea!!! People would be forced and motivated to go look to someone, so the mind puts more work in thinking "what to watch". It's interesting because I believe that the quality of content viewed would spike up. "non-suggestion-based" social media probably won't happen, but if it DOES happen .. LETS GOO!!!
In the past, I noticed that some recommendations say “viewers of (insert channel you watch here) also watch this” and then it shows videos watched by people who watch that yt channel that you also watch. Maybe youtube can just change recommendations to be like that. However I guess that would make it kind of hard for new or small channels to grow unless they made the algorithm recommend only a couple videos from multiple channels rather than a bunch of videos from only a few channels. Cuz then it would recommend more of a variety of channels to people.
It could also work just as well for boosting those smaller channels. If a handful of people who watch X big youtuber also watch Y smaller youtuber, the system might broadcast Y smaller youtuber, and then Y smaller youtuber is friends with Z medium youtuber, which feeds back into X big youtuber... you get where this is going A very good example would be some of the narrator channels like netnarrator, agro squirrel, and so on. If you watch one, you're probably going to watch multiple. Or dangerouslyfunny and spiffing brit!
It would be great if this result of this case is a more fair algorithm that does not allow UA-cam or any social media to play favorites. Seems more likely that if they lose they will just ruin it for everyone though :(
Oh no, you don't understand. If Google loses this case, it won't be able to use ANY algorithm. UA-cam won't be more fair, it will be a black box and you'll likely never stumble onto a new channel you're interested in ever again.
@@z-beeblebrox The black box would happen because it is the easier scummy thing to do in the short term. But you can also make a fair algorithm and justify using it. The biggest issue today is the algorithms are being manipulated to promote content in unfair ways. The algorithm should promote content strictly based on the users interests and fine tuned to what they want to see, but that is not really what happens. "Old UA-cam" was more like that but they learned how much more profitable it is to manipulate the recommendations. I just don't have confidence that court systems have the competency to look at something so technical and proprietary in such a precise way that it turns out actually better. But it can be done, government is just to far behind private tech to make reasonable standards and judgements on these types of issues. Also corruption is rampant so Google will not lose haha
@@JonnyRunning "The algorithm should promote content strictly based on the users interests and fine tuned to what they want to see" The problem is that this is literally what the lawsuit claims led to radicalization, ie the lawsuit's problem with algorithmic recommendation is at odds with your problem with algorithmic recommendation.
This was really helpful to see, especially from someone like you, Jordan. Many of us including me have quite literally grown up with you and your content. Seeing you and other creators speak up about more serious things like this every now and then is really refreshing. I think we really wanted to see stuff like this but just never had the the words to say it. As a kid, if I saw a video like this, odds are I'd have passed on it. Nowadays, I think hearing from my favorite UA-camrs talk about their outlook on life or how they think has been the biggest thing I think we're missing. Maybe I have a proclivity to philosophy, but I feel I might have some point to be made. I'd really love to see something like this again. Adult life has been really difficult for me, but just hearing others talk about things like this has helped make me think deeper when I'm alone or in my head. Asmongold's probably the one I can thank the most for that. Even as a child, I was very blunt and open about my feelings and thoughts, but was scared into censoring myself very early in life. (I actually found out only 3ish years ago it was due to Autism that I was never made aware of... so that's been fun). Hearing him and others speak so openly the way I used to think has helped me with how I talk and argue, (especially argue lol). I've tapped back into a part of me that I left behind because it made others uncomfortable, and I couldn't be happier. I think you could re-connect with the audience that's grown away from your content if you did videos like this every now and then if you speak about your experiences or helped walk us through stuff like this. Your lack of law training didn't effect how seriously I took you. In essence, you literally just read the book and simplified it so others can understand how it works. Proposing different scenarios to what could happen is really interesting to me. Hope to see more.
There are a ton of creators and people I never would have met without the algorithm though. I don't want to be stuck with the same people or having to manually browse through tens of thousands of videos to try and find someone new that I'd enjoy to watch. And with social media artists would basically be done for. The audience you have now is the only audience you'll have without some form of algorithm or endless self promotion at every possible opportunity. You'd be spending more time promoting yourself trying to grow than actually putting out content. It'd be hell. Basically, no. The algorithm despite the flaws it has is extremely important for a lot of people and removing it would literally kill a lot of people's only source of income via killing all growth they could have had. You shouldn't have to worry about needing to work yourself thin to grow your audience. You should be able to focus on the content you make and not how much promotion you're doing. I shouldn't have to worry about hiring a marketing department to have an audience that can enjoy my content.
As much as I think social media promoting lack of control over what you see on the internet sucks (not even from big moral standpoints - the concept of memes was ruined by it and the blame has been pinned repeatedly on "the internet doesn't know when to kill a joke" rather than people realizing maybe taking some control over what you see would solve it easily, and this is just the tip of the iceberg of people blaming other people sharing things rather than the very concept of social media and it has much bigger consequences too) this isn't how I wished people would realize that.
I thought this was gonna be about that demonization within 8 seconds thing. I don't think I even want to know how that is going. Regardless of who wins and who loses, I think there are going to be changes around here. UA-cam really needs to crack down on bad influences and scammers. I also hope they start treating their people better. I really hope everything goes ok.
Lawmakers need to get more efficient systems... It's not the 1900s anymore, we cant have a law update once a quarter anymore the world is moving much faster.
If the site doesn't take responsibility for others' statements, then why do they censor speech? It would seem their actions are already in contradiction with their practice.
I didn’t recognize this case until like halfway through because I only heard about it once on NPR. And the average person probably doesn’t listen to NPR in the car. Hope more people learn about this. Thanks for covering it!
Regardless of how we might feel about UA-cam as company, you definitely did a good job explaining the complexity of the situation. Thank you for keeping us informed Jordan! Also I’ve never heard someone use the world “deluge” while speaking. So that was a cool new thing I got to hear today👍
This is very interesting. Cause the algorithm is UA-cam saying hey watch this. But it's also an algorithm and a computer program doesn't know if something is bad unless it's told its bad. And trying to make a program rule out all these bad things is an immensely difficult process. This will be interesting to see the outcome. Although I hope UA-cam stays as unchanged as possible
I hope UA-cam stays the way it is. Them not being able to moderate is a big concern, because we've seen the kind of harm accounts like LOTT on Twitter can cause.
@NitroNinja324 I don't trust them to moderate fairly either. A transphobe openly causing bomb threats and spreading false slander should have been reported a long time ago. There still needs to be something done because the internet can be a double-edged sword.
@@sladehunter That's not what this is about, it's literally _purely_ about whether or not you can retain status as a 'platform' (which is not legally liable for things posted through it) instead of as a 'publisher' (which is liable for what they publish), if you are also algorithmically recommending and targeting content to people. UA-cam would do _anything_ to remain as a platform instead of a publisher, so if they lose this the only change is that the recommendation algorithm dies, because UA-cam will _not_ allow itself to be made a publisher. They literally can't afford it. Moderation policies would be completely unaffected
I'm thinking UA-cam would have to prove their algorithm is objective and egalitarian. Unfortunately for them, they've admitted in the past to messing with the algorithm specifically to promote and demote certain content.
I think this has had more attention recently because of that shooter in New York who streamed what he did and companies were highly targeted depending on how quickly they removed that content. Then that content would also be trending due to it being major news and people wanted to know why that stuff wasn't prevented. I think that there should be rules to prevent algorithms from recommending such problematic content, which will be complicated to figure out as a law, but that removing it or having big companies be fully liable is the wrong way to go about it. This will have huge implications for many major companies and could even slow the growth of similar technologies if done. There is much more down this rabbit hole as well.
man, the worst groups of people really are screwing over everything that could be so nice and peachy for the rest of us. this timeline is wild. Happy New Year...
@@SirHurricane_ it really hasn't been dying, just changing, and the algorithm appears to be getting better as ive been getting lots of smaller content creators in my recommended
no, youtube, a major platform where a lot of people get their news, should not be able to decide what people can say on their site without being considered a publisher. horrible idea
"Yes Yes in Spanish and reverse the words", honestly I would have never have thought of this way of putting it and it's brilliant that you came up with that so quickly
If you think about it, UA-cam actually is a publishing website. They have advertisers that pay for midroll advertisement, they have a workforce of private contractors that get paid for creating content (which creates a flow of viewers to come and click onto the site,) and have a say over what can be uploaded here. That being said, Google _should_ lose this. They have yet to be held responsible for not taking Nick Cruz's comments seriously, and also for the countless small channels getting railed by the music industry. They can, and will be, held responsible for everything that occurs on the site. For those wondering why I say this, a publisher is essentially anyone who promotes works for sale; whether it be a song, piece of art, video game. But in this case, we're talking about the entertainment industry. And UA-cam has been paid millions, and UA-camrs paid thousands, by advertisers for generating entertainment of which they could use to promote things with. The only reason why UA-cam is getting everyone, even CaptainSparklez involved, is because of this: If they lose, they will be prosecuted for a lot of the henious shit that's been posted to the site, throughout its history. And I'm certain there's a number of people who want to see UA-cam burn. Edit: After watching this video further, I can see that the only way they can survive this lawsuit: They remove the algorithm, and let UA-cam go back to the way it was around 2012; pre-algorithm.
Ohh thank god someone else sees this. Doom scrolling through comments and seeing people thank them for telling them fear porn and really nothing about the actual case.
Well in this case your trust is useless because there's nothing you can do about it... Also all he did was explain the problem and gave the worst case scenario which is very unlikely to happen
@@thepastarat Is that the part where you post UA-cam Poop and believe you have some kind of moral high ground? Or even enough sanity to hold any meaningful information in your head...
I love Jordan but please do not take his word for gospel on this. He told you up front he's not familiar with this issue. Other UA-camrs are - especially ones who are on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Google has been reaching out to all UA-camrs here that have a certain amount of subscribers, including the one I watch - Rekieta Law - and you are obviously getting a heavily biased take on this. It's not Jordan's fault - Google is obviously depending on Jordan to not know better. His conclusions that it's gonna blow up the Internet are misguided as this will not affect smaller sites.
Would be curious how the many suits already open with UA-cam on algorithms play into this. The UA-cam algorithm has had many of their AI specialists leave saying it’s a broken system, and UA-cam already has open queer creator classes and POC creator classes alleging similar issues that have harmed the communities. The algorithm doesn’t just recommend extremist content but actively harms marginalized communities as proven by the ongoing suits on that front.
So many businesses and companies rely on this and UA-cam is my personal biggest dream and goal... I'm completely terrified! So thank you for raising awareness and taking part in it.
I like these kind of video's. You broke it down to where most people can understand what is going on. Too many channels explain what's going on, but they don't break things down and they use legal jargon that most people won't understand.
I've only got some machine learning courses under my belt, but the big problem with fixing The Algorithm ™ is that, as I understand it, videos are organized by clusters of topics and recommended to users that show interest in those topics. However, those topics are probably not something like "Sports" or "Gaming" or "Outdoors". They are something that the code recognizes as being a distinct group, which may include those particular examples, but it also includes specific meme formats that we may not have names for until later (looking at you, Uncanny Mr Incredible). That said, it's not surprising that radicalizing content can get recommended. If a user finds that content, and then watches it, they get lumped into a pool of videos that other users have watched that also watched that video. If anyone remembers the conspiracy videos snafu that happened a few years back, this process going awry is what probably caused that to happen. It's not a trivial problem to solve, unfortunately.
Its multidimensional space. The AI finds the space closest to you and your past desires. Unfortunately YT and Google decided they know better and its not the Algorithm that is the problem its the humans manipulating it. This whole video is BS and google needs whats coming to them in their attempt to skirt responsibility for attempting to brainwash and manipulate people like they have been doing for sometime. This is just nonsense and CS should be ashamed of himself for being a part of it or gullible enough to faall for this propaganda bullshit.
I heartily disagree. I am also somewhat learned in machine learning and computer science. All my subscriptions are tech and gaming channels, and I rarely wander off that, and yet every single day I get recommendations for things that I have never watched or searched for. I get these recommendations because they are "hot" videos. They are the top of the trending or the most viewed recently videos, and yet are not stuff that I ever watch! So to "lump me in" a category that I do not fit in is blatantly catering to the masses. When you do that, and have lacking moderation, then things like this happen. I do agree that fixing the algorithm would be exceedingly expensive and difficult. However, with a platform like UA-cam and a company as large as Google, the resources are there to do it. So I think they should fix it. Stop catering to the masses or improve moderation.
Not trivial, and very deep-rooted. This kind of user-generative media is prone to creating closed-off internet echo chambers of misinformation. Facebook is a great example of this, where groups of people with misinformed beliefs gather together and become a conglomerated, formidable voice. QAnon is another great example, and UA-cam isn't as bad but is definitely no exception. At the heart of this issue, is simply human stupidity and arrogance, forming communities of toxic misinfo.
@@Jkesler85 The real problem isn't them, they have the resources and can tweak it. The problem is a ruling that would smaller video sharing sites to do the same. One's that rely more on subscriptions and than advertising due to their size. them adjusting their software could be very expensive and put them out of business
It's a very curious case. Indeed, the modern webscape uses algorithms like crazy and leaves far too much stuff to them like automated content moderation, but to have them be wholly legally responsible for things that come from it as a side effect would have massive ripple effects.
If they are going to censor/pick & choose who's allowed free speech. They should be held responsible for what they allow. Full free speech or else they are not a public platform.
@@dawsonfoster8310 the problem is that the ruling against would end up doing the opposite. As an example there are political channels and whether you agree or disagree with said channel, they may get suppressed or cancelled outright in order to eliminate a further lawsuit that so and so disagrees and thinks so and so is radicalizing blah blah blah. thing is if kids were watching radicalized videos, the odds are they were already on the way, or had questions and thought the internet provided "TRUTH" because every one else is a liar.... or whatever was going through their head
Meh. If the algorithms get f'k'ed, thats too bad. I wont suffer much, if at all. People who have benefited from them are going to be upset, but what about the people who've been wholly unnoticed because the algorithms never bothered to show them? I will not pity content creators who depend on algorithms and lose them if it means people who've been shafted by algorithms get a chance to compete. Get rid the the algorithms and switch to a system that is more EQUALY randomized. If that means you as a viewer has to do more work to find content worth watching, get off your lazy, algorithmically fed a$$ and do it, or go outside. What is the point in youtube not being held responsible if they still get to censor content? I get not letting this site turn into pornhub, but there has been much content that has been censored that had not violated ToS. If they are not going to be held responsible, then tell them to tone down the censorship.
@Catty Sounds like a you problem. Im not a baby that needs everything done for me. Even with a job, I would have no problem looking for content. If you find a video that breaks tos, then report it and move on? Do you need everything done for you?
The algorithm is really confusing. You really can’t tell what UA-cam wants. Game channels are getting demonetized and age restricted for showing some blood and swearing. But a video of a deer getting hit on the highway or a rat getting shot is popping up on my home page. I watch fun happy family videos on chickens and I get a video on factory farming. Help me.
Trying to refer to a terrorist organization without using their actual name and saying "Yes Yes in Spanish but backwards" is genius and had me rolling
I was wondering what he meant by "nono" as in reversing the meaning instead of the spelling.. but now I get that detail. :)
You mean yes yes in Spanish back wards
Si si…?
@@inpossible1910 flip it to is I… bad
Yeah that one took me a second to figure out lol
I learn so much thanks to "lawsuits with the captain." I hope we get more episodes
you play a dangerous game
I would love more of lawsuits with the captain it has a certain ring to it
The way he breaks them down is very satisfying
230 = cancel culture - this is pure politik´s stuff - without it the radikal left will loose.... good luck from germany
fr fr
I think the real problem here is that you can't edit, ban, and promote specific content and then say that you aren't responsible for any of the content. You can't have it both ways.
Editing especially. At that point your no longer a passive platform letting people post stuff.
Preach.
Tbh I can't understand why would it even be both ways
@@ehtresih9540 Only SLIGHT defense in terms of promoting specific content is that in that case, they are actively acting as a publisher for things like the Trending tab (which has been proven to be manual, not algorithmic) and general recommendations are as a platform. However, when they have terms of service as a platform, and proceed to moderate content with a bias, not equally applying the rules... that's when there's a conflict of platform/publisher. I've seen things on UA-cam breaking TOS that never should been allowed, and other things banned for no real reason. A good example is the current RT Game situation. Uneven application of moderation. While I do not follow such things, I am sure that there is content from corporations that breaks TOS, but isn't banned, while individuals...
Exactly, the "Good Faith" position, is "you can do one, or the other. Promote, or Suppress". If you start doing both then people start to question the reasoning behind it
I feel so bad for many youtubers especially rtgame. He posted just today of how youtube took down nearly half of his videos without warning and barely consulting him about it. He also mentioned how youtube policy is really vague that not even the employees of youtube itself can completely understand it and because of the vagueness it allows to anything they want depending on what random interpretation they have.
I thought that the videos were only demonetized, not removed? Not much of a difference because I doubt he’ll post videos anymore
@@macguy8093 demonetized and age restricted. Enough to kill a large channel
if everyone would quit using this shitty platform and make a new one then all these problems can go away right?
I can speak from firsthand experience that UA-cam creator support is an absolute nightmare to deal with and their policies are intentionally vague enough to use a scapegoat for virtually anything.
@@98f5 yeah, but it's almost impossible because you need enough people to move to a different platform so there's actually, you know, content
"if you say 'yes yes' in Spanish, then reversed the words" dude I absolutely cracked up at that that was genius
Am I stupid? I can’t for the life of me figure out what he’s referencing 😂 help me
@@Ella_The_Bean yes in Spanish is "si". Now put two of them together and spell it backwards
Is🎉is
Bonkers how careful content creators have to be with certain words.
@@afterlyte oh my god I was sitting there thinking it was sese 🤦🏽♀️ thank you
I found it odd how this is the first video now recommended as if UA-cam wanted me to see this since you're very much on their side. I do believe they shouldn't be held accountable for user uploads but they also need to be reminded to uphold their terms of services and remove blatant nudity on reels and other violent videos in a more precise manner.
I agree with you. I believe perhaps UA-cam needs to instead focus on demonetizing, deplatforming, and not allowing to be recommended videos that are dangerous or against their own terms of service. Especially the subject that made this lawsuit considered in the beginning. It’s understandable why they’re under attack but I think that they need to control their safety regulations more and hopefully will do so from this threat.
@P De youtube can already take down any video they want with little to no reason. I expect this also could be a ploy to give them stricter control over the influencers. Essentially making a new Twitter Badge but for all different forms of media. If you get one of these new badges you'll be in their algorithm if you stay good. Kinda scary how this can play out. So I just hope it doesn't go through.
It's not going to help youtube that they censor constitutionally protected speech. Gun channels, for example, get suppressed despite it not being illegal or even against TOS. These are beyond the morally objectionable standard of the moderation they're protected to do.
@@pde8444 one of the reasons this lawsuit is being held against them is BECAUSE they've been demonetizing, deplatforming, and not allowing to be recommended videos on things they disagree with, they currently have the powers of a publisher with the protections of a platform, THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE ONE AND STICK WITH IT!
Agreed, youtube hosts many creators and shouldnt get blamed fir the bad stuff that is one it. However, there should be SOME regulations to the stuff that is on here because kids are on youtube a lot as well.
The only problem I have against the algorithm is if it becomes to divisive to obscure/promote content based on a narrative. I miss the old days of youtube where it was easier to fall down rabbit holes of weird stuff and inconsistency. But nowdays, the only videos I ever see are those from content creators doing it for a living, and recommended videos no matter how hard I attempt to divert from subjects or my typical viewing, it just attempts to loop me back. It almost feels like the content recommended to me is like a hard aim assist snapping between 2 objects on either side when you're just trying to aim down the middle.
Ya, me at the zoo video is impossible to find with the algorithm, along with my own sushiman vid.
Where are my snake bite videos, Google?!
@@brianwang9017 to be fair, I don't normally watch someone eat a raw salmon filet
The fact jardon complains about the UA-cam algorithm for not recommending his videos but makes this video that the UA-cam algorithm praises is hilarious
The algorithm likes it because he's taking a pro-YT stance
"If you can't beat them, you join them".
I know nothing about this channel's content or beliefs btw, just thought the phrase above was fitting of the situation.
As a law student in the UK, you have described that perfectly. Its really important to make sure that the masses understand the laws that are going to be affecting them, and having someone in your position explain it the way you did, without dumbing it down or making it seem like you need a degree to understand it, is the best way of spreading awareness
The idea that this is all about whether the algorithm can exist is a dumbing down. It's actually about whether UA-cam can continue censoring users and violating their right to free speech with impunity. It's about whether social media platforms in general can do this, at the behest of governments, under the guise of creating a "safe" online space.
It's just a shame that school doesn't even teach you your most basic human rights, and that's why a lot of people get screwed up by cops.
"The masses"? I feel extremely sorry for anyone who utilizes your dubious legal services. Companies should absolutely be held accountable for what their algorithm endorses and presents to viewers. The fact that youtube is preparing an amicus brief, and fearmongering so many youtubers into pushing their narrative on something that really doesn't affect them in any way. It doesn't prevent UA-cam from having algorithms or anything like that, it just ensures that they have reasonable parameters.
As a normal person in the world, the fact that laws need a specific language learnt to be understood, the juridic language, means laws aren't meant for commons to comply. It's like history teachers. They only perpetuate their own profession.
@@gorkyd7912 I wished this was what was explained in this video which unfortunately now will give ppl the wrong point of view. Apparently youtube staff has been reaching out to different creators to get them to tell ppl to push back against this lawsuit cause of the repercussions that will ensue.
This isn't the only thing they are arguing in the Lawsuit. They are also arguing that because they are allowed to censor whatever they deem as hate or misinformation (even when what is shown or said is proven fact) without any repercussions that they themselves are now editorializing the content on their platform which would mean that Section 230 would not apply to platforms such as UA-cam.
great point
This 💯. In particular by not applying moderation uniformly (ie. Certain channels can show and discuss certain topics, while others cannot) they are clearly editorializing as a publisher would.
This has been said for years but they still get their tax break because they have the best people on payroll to keep that tax break and make their t&Cs deliberately vague. I really hope this changes, would love to see YT get outed in public for this stuff.....we shall see
I hope that you realize that the revoking of Section 230 protections would mean FAR more content moderation than there already is.
@@Natendo_Switch They wont be changing 230 at all. They would simply be ruling that UA-cam does not comply with it. UA-cam can either comply and moderate in “good faith” or they can be sued as a publisher.
Any negative impact from this would lay solely at UA-cam’s feet. They are choosing to editorialize and not comply. They would be choosing to enact whatever austerity measures they need to move forward as a publisher.
I love that whenever content from Captain Sparklez shows up in my feed out of nowhere it's always something that immediately stressed out by but am very quickly re-chilled by everything about this blessing of a man.
Yeah same thing for me
Yeah
Yes
Same for me
I miss Minecraft prison escape...
Sad part is we point this kind of stuff out to UA-cam, Google, and Susan so they had the opportunity removed it. Instead of listening, they act like they are deaf and ignored. If only they listen to us, this nightmare could have been prevent!
Time and time again, right? It is their own fault that this is happening now, the bullet and gun have been there for years and now Gonzalez readies their finger on the trigger.
@@connorbruhmoment Worst of it is we all in the end pay for THEIR mistakes we can't afford! 😧 Thanks for nothing @Susan Wojcicki
They don't want to prevent it. They want to control permitted speech.
@@wrongthinker843 Not surprised at this point.
@@wrongthinker843 Speech on both sides, actually. Criticism towards anything incorrect or non-complete is often seen as "cancel culture" and gets banned off of conservative platforms. If conservatives critiqued things, however, they tend to be fine since they use more vague terms and loopholes, which is why most punished people are more left-leaning, even on UA-cam. It's been a problem since around 2014 on the entire internet.
The largest problems i have with algorithm recommendations personally tends to be when it tries to get me to watch things ive already watched, or recommendations so far outside the content of any channel im subscribed to that i say to myself consciously "why am i getting this" To a lesser degree theres also things that show up because of one video a friends showed me but ive not been grabbed hard enough to follow. sometimes a video is erroneously marked under "for kids" and while im still watching it because, well its NOT, the sweeping shift in recommendations feels like it gives me brain damage
I want to believe youtube is capable of following common sense and personally enforcing their tos, but also making sure innocents dont get caught in the crossfire. their automatic content moderation systems have proven over and over to be unreliable, marking things as "made for kids" when theyre very clearly not, striking down entire videos for monetization or just entirely because of miniscule clips and bits used in good faith despite sometimes months of hard work, and even worse on the other side of the glass when appeals to get the team to rreverse or even look into the situation at all are met with silence or robotic responses that "we see no problem has occurred" and thats crushing to all the hard work that people have put in.
PS; had a thought after the fact i should have clarified from the start, Its truly absurd to think that such a corporate giant can't spare the manpower to just add more of a human touch to things. Yes the algorithm is a broken mess, No we wouldnt be better off without it, but there should be some level of ongoing input to ensure a better experience for all types of users: content hungry consumers, creative types, niche interests and interesting rabbit holes, etc. Tell a purely logic based robot to protect the company from sitting on wet paint on a bench, theres no guarantee it wont opt to destroy the bench rather than suggesting the company sit on another, less wet bench
Honestly, I hope that's where the trial ends up going. As that is UA-cam claiming what the videos are, and still letting them publish. So they are saying "yes this is allowed here, but only to this audience" which is very similar to reviews sent in to newspapers, that get published the next day.
So hopefully, this allows the chokehold that is on creators to be relieved. Help alleviate demonetization, and the COPPA issue, that is in fact still an issue.
We'll have to wait and see.
The scope isn't know completely, but this will definitely set the standard, and I've watched a few content creators disappear due to UA-cam acting like a true publisher, rather than just a platform.
The idea this is 'Gonzales vs Google' is actually a valid title, because I side with the people who think that UA-cam should be split from Google and have to make money based on itself and not have the bottomless coffers to draw from, and therefore not be required to worry about money at all, so as to push some agenda they see as correct.
If they had to think about how they would continue to make money, killing any content creator for any reason would hurt their bottom line, so the algorithm would be tuned accordingly.
We have absolutely no idea how it's actually tuned currently, and this case might shed some light on that
I think a mixture of algorithms and actual manual reccomendation would be best. Humans working with the algorithm may give us and youtube algorithm programmers more insight into the shortcomings of the algorithm, and could overall make the algorithm better faster.
he did a good job being cryptic i didnt understand what he was saying as far as what prompted the lawsuit, it is funny how much twitch stuff is reccomended on youtube
@@levioverturf9435 "UA-cam acting like a true publisher, rather than just a platform."
This
This right here is the heart of the problem
We need a lawsuit to address this, but this lawsuit ain't it, sadly
Any changes Google does ends up over correcting, see videos where kids are involved and comments are locked. If anything does go south, I hope people have a backup career path.
I’m sure that it’ll be more about a new gen platform i stead of all youtubers getting a different job.
Every gun, knife and hunting channel can attest to this
@@walkermott1750 blacksmithing channels as well
@@XY-ep8uz This lawsuit could apply to any website/internet service, not just youtube/google
@@EpicBoss-
It could be a dark age for mankind...
If the internet was destroyed...
This is indeed a concerning case. Also, one thing to note. Since this is a Supreme Court case, they don’t have to care about precedent. They often take it into consideration, but if they disagree they can just override precedent, which does make things even scarier.
They are also (by majority) a gang of republican party operatives without spines or regard for the law, so the real point is what the criminals in the GOP think the internet should look like.
Let's break things.
Especially considering how highly conservative the court is as it is now.
@@ai1410 that doesn’t matter. This isn’t a case that is politically influenced at all, because you would know there would be political lobbying for this case because it would be in the news
Most of SCOTUS wouldn't dare fuk with hundreds of billions of dollars for the lols
The problem here is Google, Facebook, etc. have wildly exceeded “good faith” of Section 230(c)(2) by moderating well beyond the restrictions mentioned and, more importantly, not applied their moderation standards uniformly. Some creators content is moderated, while others make the “Trending” despite videos being similar in content. This is almost by definition editorializing, as a publisher would.
Exactly
Agreed
Nailed it.
They are all full of hate, and like it that way!
Basically, youtube will go into panic mode and destroy the site through incompetence if they lose this case
OR they could just allow free speech so that they are covered by 230.
More likely you just wont get recommended videos if you have an american ip address since almost all other countries still have freedom.
@@egggge4752Yeah but youtube is an american company so everyone might get affected by it
They're already destroying the site through incompetence.
What? No did you pay attention to the video?
did not think THIS would be the first video of 2023
2023 starting nicely lol
2023 is starting off as a bit of a train-wreck
@@theultimatecookie394 not that bad as 2022
@@Bence3 HONESTLY WHO'S SUPRISED ANYMORE
Me too
I think if this were to go through, google would just do it on the US-side of things. All tech companies do the nonsense of "oh this is illegal in the US or EU or China?... Well, guess it's time to act on *only* those servers."
Every tech company already has different rules on different places. Most have agreements with repressive regimes to censor non approved information as well.
The issue is once the USA does something alot of countrys end up doing the same in a few years for example canada will 100% get it same with the Eu
@@emeraldbonsai EU already has MUCH stricter guidelines and laws that affect online “publishers”.
Maybe a few years ago but these days the majority of Google users are outside the US so I think it would only affect the US
@@scoobertmcruppert2915 and don't even get started on China XD
It's absurd that nine senior citizens have the power to demolish huge social media platforms based on one case. And justice Elena Kagan has admitted that she and her colleagues don't know much about the internet. I'm surprised more UA-camrs aren't talking about this case. Especially those with a large number of subscribers.
I doubt the worst case scenario you mentioned will happen. This would have implications on massive companies, such as Facebook and Tiktok. Suddenly, the second largest market for these tech giants would be gone. Blackrock and the chinese government won't let it happen
These are the same people that overturned Roe v. Wade....
@@void405 Good Point...
@@void405 Everyone knows the elite values money than women’s rights unfortunately
@@void405 Maybe, but then again TikTok was in much greater danger in the US and it survived that
@@void405 that was always going to be overturned at some point because new cases and exceptions get discovered. even biden said it would be overturned eventually ten years ago.
its just politicians sat on their ass for decades, even when they had what they needed to turn in into law with no obstructions. it being overturned also means nothing cause again, it wasn't a law, just a ruling.
plus pretty much both sides benefited from it being overturned, since it gets people out to vote for them and brings in donations.
and just like that, in this situation, if it effects how much the politicians and the big donators like google, facebook, and tiktok make, then yeah they will suddenly magically become competent... lol
Just always remember, the biggest threat to UA-cam will always be UA-cam itself and their policy changes
Always
The only way to kill a super giant company like this, is to get them to do it themself.
Yeah, I honestly don't think that this is going to really change anything. Even if the Google looses, chances are the SCOTUS will recommend that a system similar to DMCA takedown notices, where platforms will be given prior notice in order to remove the content before an actual lawsuit happens. And again, this is a big "if" it will even go through, I highly doubt this will be the case.
if i might point out the exploitable and abused trash heap that is youtube's DMCA system
But still don't think they will be able to stop everything. Just like DMCA, they are ppl who will work just for finding these videos and take YT to court with it. Except if the supreme court gives a looonnnnggggg time for YT to set a system that stops 100% everything. Wish I will be surprise if that happens easily.
I hate to be that guy, but oh my god, if I had a nickel for everytime I saw some use "loose" when they meant to say "lose", I'd be a rich man.
The problem here similar to things like Coppa is the very long string of Ifs that are needed to make such a scenario happen. Which is my major complaint with anything about ruling on the internet it doesn't go anywhere significant because there is to many ifs that need to happen to put UA-cam or any social media into that dystopian state even if google loses. On top of the fact that is not considering local by the state ruling on the matter which can further muddy the water so the efficacy of this bill is gonna be pointless at worst and questionable at best even in worst outcome territory.
@@qtip392Tom Scott did a great video on this, the jist is youtube copyright isn’t broken, the worlds is
I think the important point to understand is that there is a line between moderation and curation. If UA-cam's content suggestion algorithm is PROMOTIING the access to illegal material, meanwhile UA-cam is removing content that is clearly legally fine, but does so under the guise its "borderline content" policies, this might as well be curation and should not be protected by section 230, as UA-cam is effectively acting as a curator or a publisher. If sites want to have curated content, they should be more careful about the content that even gets to be curated and recommended to you. This isnt a complicated issue, its just a volume issue. Nobody can watch all of the content that arrives on UA-cam obviously, but they don't have to, they only need to be able to curate enough safe content to allow to be recommended.
YT having a content recommendation engine isn't the issue. The real issue is that this case is also going to have ramifications covering YT content suppression/removal practices, wherever you fall on that discussion. (and always remember, social media platform companies are not looking to improve your user experience, their interest is purely increasing your user engagement. Any recommendation/suppression/removal of content by a platform is driven ultimately by how THEY want you to use the platform.)
wrong, since taking a class on it i have (unfortunately) gained more insight into how social media sites/companies work. to improve user experience is to gain more users, which is to gain more profit. user experience and user engagement sort of go together. put simply if users dont have a good experience they wont go past the main page, they leave and dont come back. thats profit loss. so they want to make you have a good experience while also forcing you down a path that makes them money- ads, clicks, purchases ect.
@@agelessrebellion8271 sorry if my explanation gave the wrong impression that they don't care about user experience, my statement was just meant to reinforce that nothing takes priority over maximizing engagement. If there is a choice between the two, engagement weighs more heavily, which means how they want you to use the platform is overall more important than how you would like to use the platform.
@AgelessRebellion that's great in all but humans are prone to hate watching. Just because content will be viewed doesn't mean it's enjoyable, like the old system was.
@@agelessrebellion8271 In practice that's not the entirety of how it works. A lot of (sometimes by far the most) popular content creators were knocked off platforms, including this one, for unofficially stated specific reasons. They didn't do anything shady. Others just stated things that maybe someone corrupt doesn't like exposed, but would be irresponsible to not expose. Often they're not kicked off directly but shadow banned. Algorithms were tuned to cut their engagement and "mysteriously" unsubscribe people who subscribed to their channels and "demonetized" meaning ads not allowed to play for their channels.
Most of these channels had stellar engagement and revenue getting. The platform doesn't need to make money, it's funded by some other way.
I don't understand how the algorithm would recommend "yes, yes" videos, recommended videos are based on what YT thinks you're interested in, so doesn't the user have some part to blame if the viewer has been actively seeking similar content? Maybe I understood this all wrong, but how random was the event really? Think of it like this, when you first create a UA-cam account does the algorithm straight up feed you mainstream content or is it going to throw you into the deep dark if you know what I mean, again maybe I've completely misunderstood this situation, someone please enlighten me
I get recomended shit all the time that has nothing to do with what i watch. I dont know what version of the algerythm you get but its clearly not the same as the rest of us.
I fell asleep to Pokémon on my gfs tablet. I woke up 6 hours later to screams of Allahu Akhbar and an Mi-8 being hit by a missile...
@@jamielonsdale3018 you ain’t funny
i heard stories about ppl who watch shorts get recommended with just pure hate instead of the kind of videos that same user actually watches. i even saw a technique where some people post s/h cotent with a specific title to avoid getting suspended. i think thats what hes referring to.
@@CommonBlackGuy
Well I think it's funny
Ironic that youtube recommended me this video while im not even subbed
Are you going to change that?
I know... As if this is somehow going to convince me to defend UA-cam. I haven't forgotten that UA-cam uses this against their own users.
suddenly they are on his side
Same not subbed either
Not subbed and the last time I watched this channel was probably 7 years ago when I was 13 on a different google account lmao
Social media platforms have been aggressively dancing on the thin line between platform and publisher for way too long. I really hope they are put into their place and are forced to make changes
Claiming to be platform, but acting as publisher
So... you want to openly delist everything that is demonetised (and on current YT anything can be)?
Remember how did this downward spiral of demonetising everything started.
@@cola98765 You're exactly what an internet answer is usually memed as
- I like waffles
- oh so you hate pancakes?
No dude, tf is wrong with you? where do you get such an extremist take about delisting everything from what op said? jesus freaking dj raptor dude.
What do you think they should do?
@@cola98765 They just need to apply moderation (the manual stuff) EQUALLY. People like RT Game get treated much differently compared to corporations, for example, false DMCA takedowns.
I don't know if this would destroy UA-cam, but it would absolutely destroy Tiktok. And since UA-cam is desperately trying to emulate Tiktok with Shorts, it will have a destructive effect here as well, above and beyond losing a recommendations page. Personally, I think it would be insane if this case was decided in favor of the plaintiff, but crazier things have happened with this court...
TikTok didnt invent shorts. Also TikTok has spyware. Why are you still using it?
Exactly, which for tiktok you go to the site for the algorithm. I think since I’ve enjoyed watching UA-cam since the early years, the backbone was always colabs and stumbling upon things. Mainly cuz you trust one person and thus trust they’ll “bring on” someone who they like which we’ll like. Instead of a computer suggested things.
Hot take, but I think UA-cam is trying to purposefully crash their system and make it work poorly in order to foster animosity towards their platform being used for shorts. I think they want it to fail so they don't need to compete against tiktok
@@idonthaveanamenoone3526 that's one hell of a stretch but I can see how it would make sense it were to actually be true
I’d be fine with TikTok being destroyed. It is CCP spyware after all.
I mean, tumblr for the most part does not use algorithms to push any particular person- and what would show up on your dash that is using an algorithm can be turned off. Perhaps UA-cam could do something similar and make recommendations and such opt in instead of default, taking responsibility off of them and placing it on us to choose whether or not we want to see recommendations and whatever content lies within.
That's actually a cool idea
This is basically pre-2012 youtube, when the little guys actually had a chance at reach.
@@shapeshiftingpedro People acting like the algorithm being cut back is a bad thing don't understand the current situation, and only look at it from a 'i will lose money, and so will you' perspective.
UA-cam will be better for this change.
@@Volvith in the short term maybe, but if youtube is forced to cut the algorithm back too aggressively (or if youtube overreacts), they risk killing any chance small channels have to grow, which would mean youtube can only last as long as the current big channels dont retire for, after that... no new content, becuase theres no channels left making it.
tumblr was the first thing to pop into my head from this lol
Thank you for taking the time to brief everyone on what’s going down. This is definitely something to keep an eye on as it approaches.
he didnt even tell people what the hell the lawsuit was about... Nothing on why it is going on, just fear mongering that this could "destroy youtube"
The hell you thanking for? Obscurity?
@@paintballertw 1. He said he had to not describe the case and said what he was able to given what the content of the case is. 2. He said multiple times he was breaking down the worst case scenario for what could happen.
No need to be rude.
@@paintballertw You don’t seem like you watched the entire video. Either that, or you got so lost in your fit of rage because a content creator described what he could about a case he was pulled into and described why he’s concerned that you missed a good portion of the video. Either way, why are you being an ass toward people in the comments over it? Why not just make your own comment and move on?
@@paintballertw aaaawsssgssdfdcb
This is actually really ground breaking stuff. That little tiny law can make youtube go back to its original platform and that makes me happy. Especially with all the new rules coming from youtube out of nowhere.
The rules are probably an attempt to show that they are "taking steps" to better moderate their platform, while actually taking several steps back and away from actual moderation.
Chieyna *cough* *cough*
It won’t make it return to anything it will just make it more strict and enforced much harder then ever before since they can’t take chances
Yes. Time for people to stand up against corpos
@@meyers0781 I still can't believe 'they' spent 100million on Bill Clinton sexual deviance investigation. But on 14million for 911 investigation.
Off topic? Yes, but no.
The mentality of these people still ring true today.
I enjoy seeing the growth you have had as a content creator.
If you were to branch off to do more videos like this, I would watch the hell out of them.
More like what? Propaganda for an Evil companies that is on the verge of getting their Dues?
Ditto
Right? I'm 22 and have been watching (on and off admittedly) since I was 13, fuck news stations, I want the cap delivering my global news 🤣
The actual issue is that youtube often acts as a publisher not a platform. Ether by banning channels that did not align with youtubes standards, or by just demonetizing them (instead of letting the advertisers choose)
The issue is that they were forced to act like that due to the immense pressure done by mainstream media. Before that (pre-2016), youtube was a vastly different place, and it was nice. Everything went to crap when legacy media made public outcries about bad content found on youtube.
@@zsDUGGZ they could easily just ignore the fake news media
UA-cam literally has the authority to police its own website. It's right there in sec230. It is not acting as publisher when it kicks racists off the site.
@@Kutulhu Problem is when they aren't removing racially discriminatory content.
Things that are perfectly legal are being removed based on what they deem good or bad.
For example: News.
Whether they are videos by Mainstream media being hosted by UA-cam or if they are videos made by independent journalists and reporters, It shouldn't matter. But for the last 5-7 years, videos done by CNN or FOX remain live and "Suitable" for all audiences but then the ones made by smaller independent channels aren't? Even if the content is virtually the same?
@@Kutulhu No but when it demonetizes swearing and gun channels it has a serious problem.
I think the real issue isn’t algorithms by themselves, rather the issue is with content throttling or boosting on UA-cam’s commands.
If UA-cam does that, and it can be proven in court, then this will be (or at least, imo, should be) the main talking point. I personally do believe UA-cam throttle/boost content as they wish (content which follows ToS/has no clear violation). I don’t have any clearcut examples, but I do believe they do it, mainly because I’m cynical and skeptical of big corporations in general
i do have examples which is mainly of republican and conservative viewpoints. Anyone who trys to look at the truth of the many claims about Trump get censored and suppressed by youtube itself.
To summarize, the idea of an algorithm is fine. It's what could be recommended that's the problem. Did I understand correctly what you are, or what you are trying to, say? If not, I would like to know.
it's why the best case scenario is requiring these platforms to make their algorithms open-source, and fully disclose how content is recommended. I think it's reasonable to believe sites push certain content above others, and by requiring sites to be transparent, we can void these issues
@@Salt_Master_Queue the issue is that no one truly knows how these "algorithms" work. we don't know how content is pushed/suppressed. There could easily be a hidden "manual override" that allows someone to forcibly restrict certain kinds of content.
Literally any talk/late show clips channel. Nobody goes out of their way to watch those yet they're *ALWAYS* trending in the like top 20. Same for super sanitized content from family channels.
This is a genuinely a simultaneously interesting and concerning topic that I'm surprised I haven't heard about before this video. I'm interested to see how this unfolds given the COPPA situation in 2019.
I believe the problem here isn't the recommendation of content but what content is being recommended. It may be algorithmic, but the fact that the algorithm not only recognized the content but did not flag or suppress said content and instead *intentionally recommended it* is really, really bad.
Think of it this way: just because the algorithm did something bad doesn't mean that it needs to be removed entirely, but it still did something bad, a suit like this is the kind of push that could *fix* the problem. You don't just throw away a shield because it let something through a hole, you patch the hole.
sure, but from youtube's point of view, is the constant fixing of holes and legal troubles worth it?
@@Lassoloc Well what's the alternative? Scrap the whole thing and basically destroy your entire service in the process? The only viable solution is either fix the existing algorithm or start fresh with a new one. I don't see a world in which rational minds decide to basically nuke the internet because their tech either couldn't identify T-words, or actively endorsed them. Sparkles was right in that algorithms aren't inherently bad, and are in some ways vital, but by the very nature of the human experience, let alone the internet, they *cannot* be immutable. Change *needs* to happen, and this sort of thing motivates *good* change that makes the site better for everyone that isn't a monster, and hopefully makes it worse for those who are.
morally, yes, but legally, no, that's not the issue.
@@Lassoloc It wouldn't be. UA-cam would be forced into a trusted content provider method of content delivery. It would have to be so restrictive, it'd resemble crappy cable tv.
I’ve suspected for awhile that google has been using UA-cam content management as a test bed for AI in the same vein as their language processing chat bots. They’re trying to give an AI human level discretion but still at its core it’s programmed to manage the flow of UA-cam and what it’s users are watching so despite the policy swinging one way the experimental AI can be trained to the other with enough momentum online. A machine attempting to mirror a human understanding of objectionable or obscene would explain some of the bizarre behaviors from the content system especially recently
I can't believe they have to deal with this and they attacked their own community with the insane changes. What a great way to get your only lifeline on your side.
The fact that you're the only large content creator that has talked about this is INSANE. A primarily gaming channel no less. Regardless, thank you so much for covering this, I wouldn't have seen without it being recommended.
I'm sure this case is going to be covered more probably throughout this month and the next and pick up traction, but hopefully things don't turn for the worse. UA-cam and Twitch are already a hellscape to traverse if you're trying to work your way up. This would effectively screw smaller, and even some of the relatively bigger channels over as well and set massive precedents.
Like another comment said, I doubt China will let it slide considering what something like this would do to Tiktok with how dependent the site is on its algorithm.
“Is the recommended videos an endorsement like a newspaper endorsement” I never thought of that interpretation but that is 100% a viable interpretation and can literally go either way with this current Supreme Court
I haven’t seen you in forever and I don’t even think I’m subscribed, but I’m so happy I found this video. Thank you for informing, so far, 559k+ people about this subject; I really do hope that UA-cam doesn’t lose this case and can also learn from this case as well
I’m in the exact same situation as you, I subscribed since I do want to see this guy more
just documenting randomly but it's
663k now
I hope they lose the case. It will force them to correct their algorithm to be more natural and not demonontize or strike channels that have or say things that oppose youtubes views and beliefs. Any call to harm will still be taken down as it is not protected under freedom of speech, however videos of doctors presenting facts they don't like about rona can remain up, or an interview with a president they don't like will stay up.
@@trevorssillyplace Ooo that’s good I didn’t think of that
@@MasterTrizzle Yeah exactly - losing this case would be great, because "the algorithm" basically lets google decide what everyone sees by tweaking it, if people had to grow their channels algorithmically it would mean people would have to get recommendations from actual people on social media, blogs, etc for new youtubers to follow - or youtubers could actually link to other videos that they like.
The basis of Netflix is also “recommendations”. If they recommend an “offensive” film, the user has a choice, as SHOULD be the case here. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
The difference is that Netflix is a publisher, not a platform. There are no random users posting movies to Netflix, so if they do decide to post something illegal (say a movie they don't have the rights to) they can be found liable. If some random user posts the same movie to youtube, youtube would not be liable.
@@shadowcalen but yt removing content means they are curating their website. So they act as a publisher in a way while enjoying the protections of section 230. And considering tech companies coordinate with each other to police each other's public square means it's censorship without calling it censorship. 230 was just as bad as the Patriot act was after 911. It's control in the guise of safety.
Motion pictures are protected as artistic expression.
You can only sue a production company if the film depicts yourself in a slanderous way (documantary) or violates your copyright.
So no, there is a reason you can still buy Hitlers book and watch the movie "Birth of a Nation".
Yes, "offensive" is a very individual term that is defined by each viewer separately. Anyone trying to curate what you should think is offensive is just trying to censor views they don't like and has nothing to do with protecting their viewer base.
It seems that what is going to trip up Google/UA-cam is that content moderation has been inconsistent. They've made it political when rules should have been enforced evenly across the board. In that regard, they've opened themselves up to the argument that they are acting as an editor/publisher rather than just a host site. If they act like a publisher then they can be treated as a publsiher. It's a difficult conundrum because of the "legal but harmful" content perspective. At the very least this kind of content must (in my opinion) be suppressed from minors. But beyond that, it's difficult to say what content should be allowed or not.
CaptainSparklez, the man who goes from “AWW MAN” to “Hey, here’s an explanation of how this lawsuit could affect UA-cam in the future without all of the legal mumbo jumbo.”
bro 2023 just started and we are already in the Bee Movie plot.
The Bee Movie plot?
@@theultimatecookie394 it's about a lawsuit
“if you say ‘yes yes’ in spanish and reverse it” lmao that is a very creative way of saying it to avoid the moderation, my jaw dropped
I bet the YT employees taught him that one
Along with asking the viewers to side with YT because man, YT finally has a reason to get their shit together and now they are pretending they care about how you experience their platform
what "is is"?
@@kaua0f0m ye
@@kaua0f0m remove the space between the two “is” and you’ll get a radical Muslim religion that the US fought for over 20 years.
@@kaua0f0m this took me a second too. Put the 2 together and make one word
I don't want this to go through but it would be great to see companies forced to take some of their eggs out of the algorithm basket for once. But I know UA-cam wouldn't just revert to 2012 and would instead just implode.
But sites nowadays are so hostile to users who want to choose what content they see. Twitter is utter hell to use unless you change the timeline settings from Home to Latest, and it fucking switches it back after some time. UA-cam seems to hate letting posts from subscribed channels be shown to you, and it's obvious that over the years they've been reducing agency over what channels you can and cannot be recommended to watch.
Would just be nice to see all these algorithms curbed a bit, but as I said, UA-cam would just implode. Google wouldn't think of reverting to a subscription dominant service again.
I don't understand what this means, because UA-cam seems to me to be the best at letting you customize your content feed. They have nothing to gain from not giving you what you want (unless it's something that has the potential to hurt their money). The more you see something you like, the more you engage, the more money for them.
My algo works pretty well, my homepage scares me because I usually end up down a rabbit hole of content I enjoy for hours.
But what happens when you have 1000 + subscriptions? 3000 like I think I do now? How does the algo decided what to put up front? UA-cam introduced "notifications" a while ago, and some content creators complained without realizing that it was their best opportunity to stay in front of their users that might favor them.
So you set notifications for the content you want to make sure you are up to date with the channels you want to see all the time.
I actually put channels that don't update often or aren't that popular in that place. I don't need to put something like Linus Tech tips there because they are so huge, I always remember they are there, etc.
I can click on any video in my sidebar and select "Not interested" or "Don't recommend channel". My general assumption is that algo sees this too and doesn't show you that kind of content anymore. Same for dislikes you place.
The only other option is to create multiple channels for different content, so you can switch between based on what you want to see. I have one channel for studying and tech, one channel for home improvement, one channel for finance. My main channel (this one) remains for entertainment. Like I don't need home improvement videos on this channel.
But I don't know how exactly you use UA-cam. One user to another, I'm curious.
@@YouAreStillNotablazeoh yeah that’s also what Im curious about. I feel like UA-cam has gotten very good at showing me the content they think I want to see from channels I’m suscribed to
If youtube imploded maybe the world would be better off 🤔
I like true crime and watch true crime youtubers sometimes let youtube choose the next episode... more than once even if it is not even the next video youtube goes to mainstream 48 h or other huge crime show.... something to think about.
Bias will always exist, I'd like it to be my bias and not some overlording video platform.
UA-cam needs a humbling moment, they have become a proud monopoly!
i hate to say it, but you're right.
UA-cam has a 3.3% market share of social media sites. How is that a monopoly?
@@FlockFlysatMidnite Because there is no other website that monetizes videos from individual creators than can build up their own audience from nothing. Rather- no other website as popular. It is absolutely a monopoly, regardless of its niche percentage in market share for social media.
@@ItsJussMe Facebook has literally about 10 times the market share, and has all those features.
@@FlockFlysatMidnite name a popular Facebook star that makes a living from UA-cam. It’s not just about how much they make- it’s a monopolization in relevancy and who actually uses the websites. Also- Facebook pays you? Didn’t even know that was a thing, which speaks volumes
Yeah no UA-cam is so powerful and a massive monopoly upon the video sharing platforms that this will do nothing. Most is new policy that will effect only very specific group of videos
This is in the Supreme Court, this is the top level court that is very rare to see a Supreme Court case, so yeah this does have the power to change UA-cam in its entirety
This is probably the only court capable of doing this. That is scary and expensive.
I agree - "shit content" shouldn't destroy UA-cam altogether... it just doesn't make sense
The only thing that should do that is Competition...
@Timothy Crowther Let this be known that God, or Technoblade, has finally decided to cast judgement on Google due to its sins of Pride, Greed, Sloth, Envy, Gluttony, Wrath and, mostly, Lust. Only he can decide if UA-cam gets to stay at this point...
@@ramenecho3872 This is the same court that overtuned roe v. wade
Jordan not being a lawyer made it super easy to follow since he uses common terminology to explain things. Good video!
If this is the end of UA-cam then the end of UA-cam was long overdue
Amen
But...good luck with that, Susan is really really really powerful, she ain't easy to take down.
havnt really cared about UA-cam since the early days of 2015. Hopefully this is the nail in the coffin for most big tech firms.
@@Vanished584 I feel the golden age of UA-cam has passed
@@Whereismycheese5582 A LONG time ago.
It's so cool to watch old channels you haven't seen in years, times have changed, and you adapt and change or stay the same and disappear.
I think your comment towards the end was key: we've seen multiple of these types of situations over the last decade, and each time we got past them one way or another. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being the same.
I originally thought this was going to be about the censorship updates. I hope this turns out OK for UA-cams content creation community. Good luck Jardon!
Well, off everything they have done it’ll help some UA-camrs. While actively screwing over a lot of others. So not really sure how this would turn out. It’ll help a lot and hurt a lot either way it goes
@@misguidedsaint3693 Smaller creators are pretty much going to be screwed over if it goes wrong. Bigger creators are being screwed by censorship changes. At this point UA-cam might be fucked.
@@antidotebrain69 oh well
@@antidotebrain69 Censorship changes? Who has UA-cam been censoring?
@@sladehunter new rules state something along the lines of any swear words within the first set amount of time will get your video restricted
If UA-cam is no longer allowed to use an algorithm to recommend videos from creators you’re not subscribed to, then most likely there is going to be a huge boom in collaborations in order for creators to reach other creators audiences to compensate.
That's how UA-cam used to be.
@@ToxicMrSmith I’d love to see this come back tbh
if you're a small channel starting out, no one cares about collaborating with you
I agree, it’ll be nice to bring it back to the simpler days. Typically creators act more like themselves in collaborations.
Lawsuits have been hitting UA-cam and Google so much frequently, and i hope its for the better.
Same I want to see this website blow up and crumble
@@SomeUA-camrGuy I just wish to see this websites run the same way as its glory days, when it prioritized creators over sellouts
@@OrigionalCigarette Well I'd like the website to be fair but I don't think that's going to happen sadly.
@@SomeUA-camrGuy Unfortunately UA-cam is too far in to back down. Even given the option they will still prioritize backstabbing us for profit.
I wish for the same thing as you. But it's frustrating to see people miss the point of this lawsuit. It's not going to make UA-cam better. It's going to make UA-cam a million times worse.
UA-cam will put a filter in the algorithm that will only recommend big companies. The reason why is that UA-cam has millions of Creators, and UA-cam doesn't know us. They don't know who is advertising "Yesyes" but in Spanish and backwards.
But they know that big companies like Vice wouldn't do something like that.
And so the big companies' videos will get promoted by the algorithm, while the smaller Creators will go unnoticed. This will make UA-cam worse than ever before.
As an IT college student... these topics are actually so useful to me. Waaay better than a college lecture by the way. Thank you!!
Drama makes news, but for those concerned I doubt there’s reason to be worried here.
If this actually went through it would jeopardize the operation of basically every streaming, video, and social media company. That is an enormous disruption the government doesn’t want, that these companies don’t want, and that no one will let actually happen. Because letting it happen to UA-cam sets precedent for twitch, Twitter, Facebook, literally all of them could be hit next. Google alone has enough pull to shut this down, never mind every other social media or user content platform in existence behind them. It’s just not happening.
The Supreme Court isn’t as simple as that though. They consider what goes with the constitution, what precedent has been set by similar cases, and occasionally what they feel is “correct” regardless of what is correct or in line with the constitution.
This is not about what companies want it is about what is legaly allowed and how UA-cam and all those social media platforms need to handle this in the future if the court deems that it is not allowed.
Gov called me and they are shutting down the Internet because they want to see what happens
The argument “the government would never do that because companies would lose money” immediately loses all credibility when you recognize that we have over 8% inflation right now. Government gonna do what government gonna do.
@@thebestpilot7 while that's their description, the Supreme Court seems to just do whatever the judges want.
I have a feeling that the old days of youtube group channels such as Machinima that posted other channels' content to increase their reach will be making a come back if the algorithm is cut back due to the case's outcome. Can't garner an audience through the much stricter/non existent algorithm? Join a group channel
You mean a return to the better days?
Where do i sign up?
Let's hope those group channels don't become scumbags like Machinima though and holding content hostage for years
Moistchinima
@@Volvith By better days you mean group channels like machinima and defy media that held your channel hostage and take most of your revenue with exploitative contract ? Yeah better days
@@NitroNinja324 Hell yeah, let's hope brother
Man I am so glad this popped up in my feed. I haven’t seen a video by you in *years* !!! This case is crazy, and thank you for going into detail. Great to see you’re still active on UA-cam man! Happy new year!
I mean i agree that youtube needs an algorithm, but otherwise i completely agree with the people suing google.
Yeah!
To be fair SISI posts content on most platforms. They also PANDIK (I love that it comes out like that backwards I will never forget that) reporters to make their videos so high quality so dealing with this has more then 1 benefit
Enjoy network content only. That's basically what you'd be asking for wanting people to be able to sue google for the content served to them. In order to avoid an endless line of lawsuits, they'd have to be so restrictive that only absolutely trusted content would be served. As a result, channel growth would massively die off all over the platform. That'll kill channels that won't be able to afford to do it anymore as their views taper off. It'll funnel the content into large networks and turn youtube into on demand cable-like safe content.
@@Klust413 all these sites have been warned that if they kept moderating based on political biases it would come back to haunt them,this is the result of that
@@lawyitkazuki5768 I think UA-cam moderating what content is made helps keep things in balance. Preventing videos promoting SISI is a good thing.
I was always under the assumption that the user that uploaded the video was the publisher, and that UA-cam was just the method of publishing said video.
Yeah youtube is meant to be the platform that people can publish their videos onto.
That’s the general idea. A one to one comparison with tv or newspapers doesn’t fit, either, since a newspaper/TV curates and edits what it publishes whereas UA-cam doesn’t do that.
A case could be made that the algorithm curates and promotes certain content over others and counts as some sort of edit (this bit chosen over all the other bits) and publish. I don’t think it will be a worst case situation, though.
Exactly, it's like suing the company that makes the paper and sells it to the newspaper company.
normally yes, but youtubes plays the risky game of playing publisher when moderating content, 230 while not implemented this way is written so that what's protected as moderation is only illegal speech (true threats etc...) if youtube wants to guarantee it's status as a platform then it would step away from heavy handed moderation and essentially moderate by court order. otherwise it is acting as a publisher. which iirc is the general tone that scotus has been sending out regarding this case. i don't think algorithmic recommendations really have much to do with the case and unfortunately i think while Jordan is well meaning, YT has been selective in how they explained the situation to him.
Better have the correct opinions then, or they'll play publisher and suppress/remove it anyway.
I have lived through at least 3 UA-cam apocalypses (4 if you count the Canadian Bill C-11). You should ask a lawyer about it (maybe a UA-camr lawyer), because the plaintiff's argument is that Section 230 doesn't fully cover recommendations in their moderation protection; so, the review could go in the way that it ends up specifically extending the protection to the algorithm too.
About the frivolous lawsuits argument, well, remember that those who file those lawsuit also need to pay for their own legal fees; and Google has a much higher budget than the haters.
bro.... there has NOT BEEN ANY "appocalypses" in youtube. jeez, stop being such a drama queen!!! UA-cam has been constantly making good changes to their website and their video sharing platform. They are doing amazing things to make youtube better for the viewers. It was NEVER intended for people to make money off of. it still is not intended for anybody to make money from, its supposed to be just for people to share videos with each other.
@@orion7741 when it flies over your head..
@@orion7741 sure let's pretend the adpocalypse never happened and never impacted channels both big and small
@@eas_sae they should just delete their account
@@orion7741 from this one comment I can tell that you are not a pleasant person
UA-cam absolutely deserves to lose section 230 protection. They've acted as a publisher for over a decade.
Setting precedent that 230 protection can be removed destroys online free speech in the states irrevocably. I don't like YT management, but this is a really bad take imo. Even if they have been acting as a publisher, the negative effects of them loosing 230 protection on the rest of the internet would be really terrible really quick, and basically just opens all websites that host user content up to infinite SLAP lawsuits while providing no value to anyone. (i would be interested to hear your reasoning on it though as i could be wrong)
💯 precent agree
Agree
There will be even more consequences
Could we just have a new CaptainSparklez series where he just reads complicated law and then translates for us normal people?? This video helped me understand so much!
The difficulty is that he is presenting mostly what UA-cam's legal teams have provided him. I don't think he is trying to deceive anyone, but I think he's only been given one side of the argument. Some of the other comments here do a great job rolling up the side of the debate.
Where you feel the truth lies is up to you, but certainly don't take one source as the truth, even if he's a great guy who would never intentionally deceive anyone.
There are licensed lawyers on UA-cam who do things like this already.
legaleagle
Captain sparkle partners up with hank green for the most bomb ass education compilation since bill nye?
I think yes.
Dude LegalEagle would be great for you
Honestly I may be completely crazy here, but that doesn't sound all that bad. Currently the most annoying thing I find with you tube is it's extremely hard to explore and find content out of my little "bubble". It's nice and all but really If you keep everyone in their own bubbles of what they like and stop seeing the whole picture it can have catastrophic consequences like the case Gonzales is talking about.
I think the fact of the matter is that it's not just about you-tube, this would affect social media and the internet as a whole, including advertisements. I mean think of all the scam ads that google gives you because they just get paid and ignore any implications. This would also force them to actually secure their advertisements rather than just take the money and shove it out there, no? I mean I work for a business and in IT and when someone clicks an ad (recommended by google "adsense") 90% of the time its a website with a bunch of fake virus pop ups.
Yes, this would suck for the current environment we are in, short term would do a lot of damage but as someone who tries to think long term I think this would be extremely beneficial.
Again may be completely crazy here.
They have over-optimized their recommendation algorithm to the point where it's barely usable. I have frequently ended up creating new UA-cam handles just so I can discover new channels. I wish they would switch back to the old algorithm.
Interesting that. thingy is how would people be able to see the whole picture, without algorithm recommendation, or just recommendation in the first place.
I totally agree there are way too many scam ad and problematic ads that shouldn't be allowed on the site, and UA-cam must have been purposely ignoring them this whole time.
What I am worrying the most is whether UA-cam will throw their users and creators down the bus, such as making the demonitise or reporting system even harsher or tighter.
But no you aren't crazy, this might have a good outcome, if UA-cam wants to proceed that direction that is.
I agree with you as well
Giving bad faith actors a platform also has catastrophic consequences. And those consequences can end with people dead. I would gladly take being exposed to only my bubble if it means people who put others in danger are ready to be kicked out.
Twitter refusing to ban LOTT; an account that has caused a threat at a children's hospital along with spreading misleading information and hysteria about minorities which will lead to violence. It has been stated over and over again, you can't tolerate intolerance because the intolerant will destroy you.
Damn too long didnt read
I find it curious that now because of this lawsuit that UA-cam is reaching out to you to get involved when it seemed like before they didn't treat you as a valuable content creator. It's like when a manager constantly forgets you when they take the entire department out for lunch except you but then when that manager has a problem that you can help them solve, suddenly you exist. smh
I completely agree with your statement.
And he immediately become their promotional spokesperson. I guess integrity isn't in his vocabulary
To be honest, youtube needs to be taken down many pegs. Competitors need to rise.
@nightmarelordgaming1993 only if you let it be. Advertisers will move to other platforms, and those sites will do what UA-cam did, minus the sell out to a mega Corp.
Did you not listen to what he says? If they win against Google that means EVERY similar site will have the SAME problem. It sets precedence for the entire entertainment industry.
@@manoftruth0935 There a very few if no companies in the world that have the resources to run a platform like youtube other than Google.
@nightmarelordgaming1993 fine. But don’t complain when Führerin Susan of UA-cam and her stasi force you to sign contracts that make the 1.1 OGL of DND seem fair by comparison.
@@durrantmiller8810 the power will be broken up and more sites will exist and profit. UA-cam has held a technical monopoly for far too long.
Don’t complain when ReichTube’s leader Susan makes you sign a contract that makes DND OGL 1.1 seem like a fair and reasonable deal.
Wow! This is huge. I'm glad your talking about it so some good might come out of it. I care about the content creators as I learn so much from them as well as learning something new. I had no idea this was going on until the algorithm shared your video with me. I think the pros outweigh the negatives in the case of having algorithms. I'm now a subscriber and will be following this topic on your channel. This makes a good case for all of us to get involved. Thanks for the video.
I hope you see the irony in your first introduction to this topic also being in favor of the algorithm. This is a very nuanced topic and if you think it's important then I would recommend you start searching. There are so many videos on the subject from many different perspectives.
I hope things get nicer and easier. There's been needed change and I hope people genuinely listen to the community and people who actually pay attention. Sounds concerning tho. I am rally worried about the lack of cybersecurity and genuinely holding platforms/individuals accountable for their actions 🍀🍀🍀
I'm old enough to remember how UA-cam's recommended video system worked before all this modern algorithmic stuff. Back then, recommended videos were simply based on the video you were currently watching. I think it matched tags, maybe title, and then ranked them based on views and comments. As such, everybody who watched a video would basically get the exact same recommendations, and people would frequently comment things like "like if you also came from Video X".
The home page was filled with recently uploaded videos from your subscribed channels, and I also recall a section that would show you videos that were being favorited by other accounts that were subscribed to the same channels as you.
I really, really preferred that system. It felt like youtube was more closely knit and actually had a community, where clusters of videos would exist that tied people together. And when a new video was uploaded, all your fellow subscribers would signal boost that content simply from watching it.
I don't think youtube needs the modern algorithm. They could go back to a simpler system and everything would be just fine, maybe even better.
That would be a terrible system for someone like me as i watch all sorts of content from history to biology, gaming channels, esport video, law videos, Music Videos, videos about sciene and some that you cant really fit into any catergory aside of it being simpy enjoyable to watch. Then comes to aspect of watching people that speak a completly different language so there is that.
Like it doesnt matter if there are other people with identical interests to me that howerver just dont watch polish or german videos.
And to the majority of people that i watch i just dont subscribe to as i would otherwise have an infinite long subscription list.
That system that you said is how it used to be would literally destroy youtube with how i use it. There is no way i would get the recomendation to all those topics im interested to simply from 'other people boosting these videos'
actually 0% chance
@@roijoleil268 There are many alternatives that could be developed. There's already an explore tab by subjects. There's also user made playlists. I don't think anyone really uses those because the base algorithm is pretty darn effective, but such features could be improved upon and youtube could still be very functional.
I don't see how that would really be different in light of this lawsuit. That was still an algorithm feeding you recommended content. It was a much simpler algorithm, but I don't think that changes the question of who is legally responsible.
@@roijoleil268
Actually, it's EASIER to find a variety of content with the old system. These days, UA-cam does this annoying thing where you watch one video about a subject, and then your feed gets filled with videos like that for days. Doesn't matter what I'm watching RIGHT NOW, my recommended tab is still the same stuff as always.
Old system: watch a different video, get different related videos. Watch something new = find something new.
And if you aren't subscribing to channels that you like to watch, that's your problem, not UA-cam's. You're supposed to sub to channels whose videos you want to watch, that's the entire point.
:)
How would not suggestion based social media work? Well ... I like the idea!!!
People would be forced and motivated to go look to someone, so the mind puts more work in thinking "what to watch". It's interesting because I believe that the quality of content viewed would spike up.
"non-suggestion-based" social media probably won't happen, but if it DOES happen .. LETS GOO!!!
Just a nearly infinite library of videos instead of this, seems interesting
@@aldlas no one could ever grow if they were a small channel
In the past, I noticed that some recommendations say “viewers of (insert channel you watch here) also watch this” and then it shows videos watched by people who watch that yt channel that you also watch. Maybe youtube can just change recommendations to be like that. However I guess that would make it kind of hard for new or small channels to grow unless they made the algorithm recommend only a couple videos from multiple channels rather than a bunch of videos from only a few channels. Cuz then it would recommend more of a variety of channels to people.
It could also work just as well for boosting those smaller channels. If a handful of people who watch X big youtuber also watch Y smaller youtuber, the system might broadcast Y smaller youtuber, and then Y smaller youtuber is friends with Z medium youtuber, which feeds back into X big youtuber... you get where this is going
A very good example would be some of the narrator channels like netnarrator, agro squirrel, and so on. If you watch one, you're probably going to watch multiple. Or dangerouslyfunny and spiffing brit!
Thanks for spreading awareness about this. I wonder if this has anything to do with UA-cam's new huge policy change around demonetization?
It would be great if this result of this case is a more fair algorithm that does not allow UA-cam or any social media to play favorites. Seems more likely that if they lose they will just ruin it for everyone though :(
If they lose, they don't have a choice but to ruin it for everyone
Oh no, you don't understand. If Google loses this case, it won't be able to use ANY algorithm. UA-cam won't be more fair, it will be a black box and you'll likely never stumble onto a new channel you're interested in ever again.
@@z-beeblebrox The black box would happen because it is the easier scummy thing to do in the short term. But you can also make a fair algorithm and justify using it. The biggest issue today is the algorithms are being manipulated to promote content in unfair ways. The algorithm should promote content strictly based on the users interests and fine tuned to what they want to see, but that is not really what happens. "Old UA-cam" was more like that but they learned how much more profitable it is to manipulate the recommendations. I just don't have confidence that court systems have the competency to look at something so technical and proprietary in such a precise way that it turns out actually better. But it can be done, government is just to far behind private tech to make reasonable standards and judgements on these types of issues. Also corruption is rampant so Google will not lose haha
@@JonnyRunning "The algorithm should promote content strictly based on the users interests and fine tuned to what they want to see"
The problem is that this is literally what the lawsuit claims led to radicalization, ie the lawsuit's problem with algorithmic recommendation is at odds with your problem with algorithmic recommendation.
This was really helpful to see, especially from someone like you, Jordan. Many of us including me have quite literally grown up with you and your content. Seeing you and other creators speak up about more serious things like this every now and then is really refreshing. I think we really wanted to see stuff like this but just never had the the words to say it. As a kid, if I saw a video like this, odds are I'd have passed on it. Nowadays, I think hearing from my favorite UA-camrs talk about their outlook on life or how they think has been the biggest thing I think we're missing. Maybe I have a proclivity to philosophy, but I feel I might have some point to be made. I'd really love to see something like this again.
Adult life has been really difficult for me, but just hearing others talk about things like this has helped make me think deeper when I'm alone or in my head. Asmongold's probably the one I can thank the most for that. Even as a child, I was very blunt and open about my feelings and thoughts, but was scared into censoring myself very early in life. (I actually found out only 3ish years ago it was due to Autism that I was never made aware of... so that's been fun). Hearing him and others speak so openly the way I used to think has helped me with how I talk and argue, (especially argue lol). I've tapped back into a part of me that I left behind because it made others uncomfortable, and I couldn't be happier.
I think you could re-connect with the audience that's grown away from your content if you did videos like this every now and then if you speak about your experiences or helped walk us through stuff like this. Your lack of law training didn't effect how seriously I took you. In essence, you literally just read the book and simplified it so others can understand how it works. Proposing different scenarios to what could happen is really interesting to me. Hope to see more.
On the other hand, if it is not too late, making us do our own thinking might just be the solution that 'social media' and the like needs.
There are a ton of creators and people I never would have met without the algorithm though. I don't want to be stuck with the same people or having to manually browse through tens of thousands of videos to try and find someone new that I'd enjoy to watch.
And with social media artists would basically be done for. The audience you have now is the only audience you'll have without some form of algorithm or endless self promotion at every possible opportunity. You'd be spending more time promoting yourself trying to grow than actually putting out content. It'd be hell.
Basically, no. The algorithm despite the flaws it has is extremely important for a lot of people and removing it would literally kill a lot of people's only source of income via killing all growth they could have had. You shouldn't have to worry about needing to work yourself thin to grow your audience. You should be able to focus on the content you make and not how much promotion you're doing.
I shouldn't have to worry about hiring a marketing department to have an audience that can enjoy my content.
As much as I think social media promoting lack of control over what you see on the internet sucks (not even from big moral standpoints - the concept of memes was ruined by it and the blame has been pinned repeatedly on "the internet doesn't know when to kill a joke" rather than people realizing maybe taking some control over what you see would solve it easily, and this is just the tip of the iceberg of people blaming other people sharing things rather than the very concept of social media and it has much bigger consequences too) this isn't how I wished people would realize that.
It’s really sad that you can’t talk about a United States Supreme Court case without being censored
I thought this was gonna be about that demonization within 8 seconds thing. I don't think I even want to know how that is going. Regardless of who wins and who loses, I think there are going to be changes around here. UA-cam really needs to crack down on bad influences and scammers. I also hope they start treating their people better. I really hope everything goes ok.
Lawmakers need to get more efficient systems... It's not the 1900s anymore, we cant have a law update once a quarter anymore the world is moving much faster.
If the site doesn't take responsibility for others' statements, then why do they censor speech? It would seem their actions are already in contradiction with their practice.
For the advertisers
@Ruth the advertisers care about "Vaccine misinformation"?
This
I didn’t recognize this case until like halfway through because I only heard about it once on NPR. And the average person probably doesn’t listen to NPR in the car. Hope more people learn about this. Thanks for covering it!
NPR is a joke, they intentionally downplayed the Hunter laptop story even when NYT and WP confirmed that it wasn't a Russian hoax
Regardless of how we might feel about UA-cam as company, you definitely did a good job explaining the complexity of the situation. Thank you for keeping us informed Jordan!
Also I’ve never heard someone use the world “deluge” while speaking. So that was a cool new thing I got to hear today👍
🔝🔝🔝🔝Thanks for the feedback👍
Expect more videos soon. Inbox me with the above username to acknowledge your prizes...Thank you❤️
This is very interesting. Cause the algorithm is UA-cam saying hey watch this. But it's also an algorithm and a computer program doesn't know if something is bad unless it's told its bad. And trying to make a program rule out all these bad things is an immensely difficult process. This will be interesting to see the outcome. Although I hope UA-cam stays as unchanged as possible
I hope UA-cam stays the way it is. Them not being able to moderate is a big concern, because we've seen the kind of harm accounts like LOTT on Twitter can cause.
@sladehunter I don't trust them to moderate fairly.
@NitroNinja324 I don't trust them to moderate fairly either. A transphobe openly causing bomb threats and spreading false slander should have been reported a long time ago.
There still needs to be something done because the internet can be a double-edged sword.
@@sladehunter That's not what this is about, it's literally _purely_ about whether or not you can retain status as a 'platform' (which is not legally liable for things posted through it) instead of as a 'publisher' (which is liable for what they publish), if you are also algorithmically recommending and targeting content to people. UA-cam would do _anything_ to remain as a platform instead of a publisher, so if they lose this the only change is that the recommendation algorithm dies, because UA-cam will _not_ allow itself to be made a publisher. They literally can't afford it.
Moderation policies would be completely unaffected
@@khaos9043 It was stated in the video that the status of publisher could determine how they moderate. But okay
I'm thinking UA-cam would have to prove their algorithm is objective and egalitarian. Unfortunately for them, they've admitted in the past to messing with the algorithm specifically to promote and demote certain content.
I think this has had more attention recently because of that shooter in New York who streamed what he did and companies were highly targeted depending on how quickly they removed that content. Then that content would also be trending due to it being major news and people wanted to know why that stuff wasn't prevented. I think that there should be rules to prevent algorithms from recommending such problematic content, which will be complicated to figure out as a law, but that removing it or having big companies be fully liable is the wrong way to go about it. This will have huge implications for many major companies and could even slow the growth of similar technologies if done. There is much more down this rabbit hole as well.
man, the worst groups of people really are screwing over everything that could be so nice and peachy for the rest of us. this timeline is wild. Happy New Year...
Praying that UA-cam doesn’t die as a hoping to be content creator
It will die eventually and it has been for a while. But don’t worry a new platform will appear when it dies that will take its place
@@SirHurricane_ it really hasn't been dying, just changing, and the algorithm appears to be getting better as ive been getting lots of smaller content creators in my recommended
@@SirHurricane_ there is a reason why UA-cam is the only platform of its kind. It takes tremendous amount of money and infrastructure to run it.
Good luck Abags
As Tom Scott said in his video "This video has X views", UA-cam will definitely die eventually. Everything does.
no, youtube, a major platform where a lot of people get their news, should not be able to decide what people can say on their site without being considered a publisher. horrible idea
i love when the captain does these sit down style videos, its like the weekly slap or mogul mail and i could watch these all day.
"Yes Yes in Spanish and reverse the words", honestly I would have never have thought of this way of putting it and it's brilliant that you came up with that so quickly
I am so confused, I don't get it.
@@sladehunter yes in Spanish = si = backwards “is” x2. Acronym.
@@thewinterizzy Wait a minute. Really???
So quickly…as in what was suggested he say by UA-cam and that he had to time to think about while writing this script?
If you think about it, UA-cam actually is a publishing website. They have advertisers that pay for midroll advertisement, they have a workforce of private contractors that get paid for creating content (which creates a flow of viewers to come and click onto the site,) and have a say over what can be uploaded here.
That being said, Google _should_ lose this. They have yet to be held responsible for not taking Nick Cruz's comments seriously, and also for the countless small channels getting railed by the music industry. They can, and will be, held responsible for everything that occurs on the site.
For those wondering why I say this, a publisher is essentially anyone who promotes works for sale; whether it be a song, piece of art, video game. But in this case, we're talking about the entertainment industry. And UA-cam has been paid millions, and UA-camrs paid thousands, by advertisers for generating entertainment of which they could use to promote things with.
The only reason why UA-cam is getting everyone, even CaptainSparklez involved, is because of this: If they lose, they will be prosecuted for a lot of the henious shit that's been posted to the site, throughout its history. And I'm certain there's a number of people who want to see UA-cam burn.
Edit: After watching this video further, I can see that the only way they can survive this lawsuit: They remove the algorithm, and let UA-cam go back to the way it was around 2012; pre-algorithm.
Good Analysis,
Honestly, I would love a pre-algorithm youtube again.
I really freaking hope that youtube loses the lawsuit, they deserve to get sued, they've had this coming for years now
And hopefully the damage results in the end of the Susan era
It's literally just UA-cam trying to get their creators to lobby for them
Ohh thank god someone else sees this. Doom scrolling through comments and seeing people thank them for telling them fear porn and really nothing about the actual case.
I very much trust his educated opinion on anything UA-cam as he has the experience, resources, and wherewithal to know the trends
Well in this case your trust is useless because there's nothing you can do about it...
Also all he did was explain the problem and gave the worst case scenario which is very unlikely to happen
@@gurunext There's a thing called "being informed" in case you haven't heard about it
Trends and what makes money and what’s best for people are very different things. He’s looking out for the bag and UA-cam asked him to do so. Period.
@@thepastarat Is that the part where you post UA-cam Poop and believe you have some kind of moral high ground?
Or even enough sanity to hold any meaningful information in your head...
I love Jordan but please do not take his word for gospel on this. He told you up front he's not familiar with this issue. Other UA-camrs are - especially ones who are on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Google has been reaching out to all UA-camrs here that have a certain amount of subscribers, including the one I watch - Rekieta Law - and you are obviously getting a heavily biased take on this. It's not Jordan's fault - Google is obviously depending on Jordan to not know better.
His conclusions that it's gonna blow up the Internet are misguided as this will not affect smaller sites.
Would be curious how the many suits already open with UA-cam on algorithms play into this.
The UA-cam algorithm has had many of their AI specialists leave saying it’s a broken system, and UA-cam already has open queer creator classes and POC creator classes alleging similar issues that have harmed the communities. The algorithm doesn’t just recommend extremist content but actively harms marginalized communities as proven by the ongoing suits on that front.
So many businesses and companies rely on this and UA-cam is my personal biggest dream and goal... I'm completely terrified! So thank you for raising awareness and taking part in it.
This isn't the end of UA-cam. They could easily just ease up on their content moderation to stay on the good side of Section 230.
I like these kind of video's. You broke it down to where most people can understand what is going on. Too many channels explain what's going on, but they don't break things down and they use legal jargon that most people won't understand.
I've only got some machine learning courses under my belt, but the big problem with fixing The Algorithm ™ is that, as I understand it, videos are organized by clusters of topics and recommended to users that show interest in those topics. However, those topics are probably not something like "Sports" or "Gaming" or "Outdoors". They are something that the code recognizes as being a distinct group, which may include those particular examples, but it also includes specific meme formats that we may not have names for until later (looking at you, Uncanny Mr Incredible). That said, it's not surprising that radicalizing content can get recommended. If a user finds that content, and then watches it, they get lumped into a pool of videos that other users have watched that also watched that video. If anyone remembers the conspiracy videos snafu that happened a few years back, this process going awry is what probably caused that to happen. It's not a trivial problem to solve, unfortunately.
The true threat of AI isn't its potential to go rogue, but rather its own ineptitudes.
Its multidimensional space. The AI finds the space closest to you and your past desires. Unfortunately YT and Google decided they know better and its not the Algorithm that is the problem its the humans manipulating it. This whole video is BS and google needs whats coming to them in their attempt to skirt responsibility for attempting to brainwash and manipulate people like they have been doing for sometime. This is just nonsense and CS should be ashamed of himself for being a part of it or gullible enough to faall for this propaganda bullshit.
I heartily disagree. I am also somewhat learned in machine learning and computer science. All my subscriptions are tech and gaming channels, and I rarely wander off that, and yet every single day I get recommendations for things that I have never watched or searched for. I get these recommendations because they are "hot" videos. They are the top of the trending or the most viewed recently videos, and yet are not stuff that I ever watch! So to "lump me in" a category that I do not fit in is blatantly catering to the masses. When you do that, and have lacking moderation, then things like this happen.
I do agree that fixing the algorithm would be exceedingly expensive and difficult. However, with a platform like UA-cam and a company as large as Google, the resources are there to do it. So I think they should fix it. Stop catering to the masses or improve moderation.
Not trivial, and very deep-rooted. This kind of user-generative media is prone to creating closed-off internet echo chambers of misinformation. Facebook is a great example of this, where groups of people with misinformed beliefs gather together and become a conglomerated, formidable voice. QAnon is another great example, and UA-cam isn't as bad but is definitely no exception. At the heart of this issue, is simply human stupidity and arrogance, forming communities of toxic misinfo.
@@Jkesler85 The real problem isn't them, they have the resources and can tweak it. The problem is a ruling that would smaller video sharing sites to do the same. One's that rely more on subscriptions and than advertising due to their size. them adjusting their software could be very expensive and put them out of business
It's a very curious case.
Indeed, the modern webscape uses algorithms like crazy and leaves far too much stuff to them like automated content moderation, but to have them be wholly legally responsible for things that come from it as a side effect would have massive ripple effects.
If they are going to censor/pick & choose who's allowed free speech. They should be held responsible for what they allow. Full free speech or else they are not a public platform.
Only in the USA. So US citizens get barebones only searchable youtube while the rest of the world has normal youtube.
@@dawsonfoster8310 the problem is that the ruling against would end up doing the opposite. As an example there are political channels and whether you agree or disagree with said channel, they may get suppressed or cancelled outright in order to eliminate a further lawsuit that so and so disagrees and thinks so and so is radicalizing blah blah blah.
thing is if kids were watching radicalized videos, the odds are they were already on the way, or had questions and thought the internet provided "TRUTH" because every one else is a liar.... or whatever was going through their head
Meh.
If the algorithms get f'k'ed, thats too bad. I wont suffer much, if at all.
People who have benefited from them are going to be upset, but what about the people who've been wholly unnoticed because the algorithms never bothered to show them?
I will not pity content creators who depend on algorithms and lose them if it means people who've been shafted by algorithms get a chance to compete.
Get rid the the algorithms and switch to a system that is more EQUALY randomized.
If that means you as a viewer has to do more work to find content worth watching, get off your lazy, algorithmically fed a$$ and do it, or go outside.
What is the point in youtube not being held responsible if they still get to censor content? I get not letting this site turn into pornhub, but there has been much content that has been censored that had not violated ToS.
If they are not going to be held responsible, then tell them to tone down the censorship.
@Catty
Sounds like a you problem.
Im not a baby that needs everything done for me. Even with a job, I would have no problem looking for content.
If you find a video that breaks tos, then report it and move on?
Do you need everything done for you?
The algorithm is really confusing. You really can’t tell what UA-cam wants. Game channels are getting demonetized and age restricted for showing some blood and swearing. But a video of a deer getting hit on the highway or a rat getting shot is popping up on my home page. I watch fun happy family videos on chickens and I get a video on factory farming. Help me.