• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Shaanyboi
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:23 AM)
Shaanyboi's Avatar
Yo, what the fuck.
The Albatross
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:24 AM)
The Albatross's Avatar
Here's more info on it:

http://www.tubefilter.com/2017/03/17...stricted-mode/

“Restricted Mode is an optional feature used by a very small subset of users who want to have a more limited YouTube experience,” a YouTube spokesperson told Tubefilter in a statement. “Some videos that cover subjects like health, politics, and sexuality may not appear for users and institutions that choose to use this feature.”

On its support page, YouTube says it uses “community flagging, age-restrictions, and other signals to identify and filter out potentially inappropriate content” in Restricted Mode — which is turned off across the platform by default. And videos that are unavailable in Restricted Mode can still be monetized.

Sounds like videos that have age restrictions on them or have certain keywords in the title/tags are getting blocked if you're turning on restricted mode. They are still monetized, though.
Last edited by The Albatross; 03-20-2017 at 03:27 AM.
Alavard
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:25 AM)
Alavard's Avatar

Originally Posted by Slacker

Is there actual demonstrable wrongdoing here? Doesn't the statement say LGBT stuff is available in restricted more, just that some stuff may not be?

The statement is wrong. It says only controversial LGBT+ content is restricted. Makeup tutorials for transwomen, coming out videos, and videos about navigating valentine's day as an asexual person all are restricted - not controversial at all.
Breads
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:26 AM)
Breads's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Albatross

Here's more info on it:

http://www.tubefilter.com/2017/03/17...stricted-mode/

This actually makes more sense. Actually this sounds better than the first change because at first our fear was that these community shitlords would dictate what we see on youtube overall and it seems now that their flagging operations only effect the experiences of people who use this restricted mode.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(03-20-2017, 03:29 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Albatross

Here's more info on it:

http://www.tubefilter.com/2017/03/17...stricted-mode/



Sounds like videos that have age restrictions on them or have certain keywords in the title/tags are getting blocked if you're turning on restricted mode. They are still monetized, though.

That seems...perfectly acceptable.
BernardoOne
Banned
(03-20-2017, 03:31 AM)

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

That seems...perfectly acceptable.

How so?
Alavard
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:32 AM)
Alavard's Avatar

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

That seems...perfectly acceptable.

Evidently it isn't to many of us. In fact, I find it to be blatantly discriminatory.
Rayis
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:33 AM)
Rayis's Avatar
If it stops stuff like the LGTBQ month video that got massively thumbed down and trolled by bigots I'm all for it.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(03-20-2017, 03:34 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

How so?

It's an optional mode for people who want it. It seems very few people do and it doesn't effect monetization. The inputs to the determination of what is chosen to not appear can be tweaked over time based on input from those users who want it I guess, but being purely opt-in I'm not concerned.
Alavard
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:35 AM)
Alavard's Avatar

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

It's an optional mode for people who want it. It seems very few people do and it doesn't effect monetization. The inputs to the determination of what is chosen to not appear can be tweaked over time based on input from those users who want it I guess, but being purely opt-in I'm not concerned.

Personally, I don't think Youtube should have an 'I'm a bigot' button. As it stands, that's what it is.

Keep in mind, David Duke videos remain available in this mode, as do videos about sex toys.
Sub Boss
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:36 AM)
Sub Boss's Avatar
Uff at least it isn't default. Everything ok for now :/
Wafflecakes
(03-20-2017, 03:36 AM)
Wafflecakes's Avatar

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

It's an optional mode for people who want it. It seems very few people do and it doesn't effect monetization. The inputs to the determination of what is chosen to not appear can be tweaked over time based on input from those users who want it I guess, but being purely opt-in I'm not concerned.

If you aren't logged in don't you default to restricted mode?
BernardoOne
Banned
(03-20-2017, 03:36 AM)

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

It's an optional mode for people who want it. It seems very few people do and it doesn't effect monetization. The inputs to the determination of what is chosen to not appear can be tweaked over time based on input from those users who want it I guess, but being purely opt-in I'm not concerned.

If you actually read the article you'd see how disgustingly discriminatory it is. This shouldn't be a thing at all. Give people a option to block certain channels or certain tags. That would be a actual improvement that everyone could use.

This is just all kinds of shitty.
Gin-Shiio
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:37 AM)
Gin-Shiio's Avatar
Should be called "Snowflake Mode".
Easy_D
never left the stone age
(03-20-2017, 03:38 AM)
Easy_D's Avatar

Originally Posted by ItIsOkBro

quick and dirty experiment: search 'lgbtq' with restricted mode off and on, see what gets filtered

restricted mode off:


restricted mode on:


immediately you can see one causality, "father and son (lgbtq short film)"

Oh hey they also filtered a video talking about the subject of videos being filtered
Prodigal Son
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:38 AM)
Prodigal Son's Avatar

Originally Posted by Wafflecakes

If you aren't logged in don't you default to restricted mode?

No.
The Albatross
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:38 AM)
The Albatross's Avatar
Given Google's corporate leadership on LGBTQ issues and awareness, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt in trying to figure out the filter. Most LGBTQ content is still available in Restricted mode (at least, according to articles that have looked into it), and so I'm assuming that the acceptable videos that are blocked in restricted mode -- makeup videos or some coming out videos (while others are available) -- will be fixed or tweaked as they improve the algorithm.

Restricted mode also blocks out conservative propaganda videos, atleast, according to this 2016 Breitbart article about it -- Not sure if breitbart can be linked, but google "Restricted mode conservative censors" and you get 26million results of right-wing outrage over YouTube blocking movies about "Judeo Christian Values."

And for other fairly mundane videos that YouTube blocks on restricted mode is a video about Alan Dershowitz giving a 5-minute lecture on the History of Israel (Boston Globe article) for instance. I doubt that Google is anti-Israel or against Dershowitz' 5-min history of Israel, but it probably has filters, tags, comments, or something else that get it blocked on restricted mode.

Originally Posted by BOston Globe Article

But the talk show host, Dennis Prager, said the explanation seems clear: Alphabet Inc., the giant Internet conglomerate that owns Google and YouTube, is actively attempting to suppress conservative viewpoints.

Originally Posted by Wafflecakes

If you aren't logged in don't you default to restricted mode?

No, according to YouTube's FAQ, you have to be logged in, then go to settings, and change your settings to be restricted mode.
Last edited by The Albatross; 03-20-2017 at 03:47 AM.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:39 AM)
Freeza Under The Shower's Avatar
edit: oh, if it moves out ALL political flagged content I'm not uncool with it. Too bad all ads don't get flagged.

At the same time, I do not believe emancipation is a political issue, rather a call for justice.
Last edited by Freeza Under The Shower; 03-20-2017 at 03:41 AM.
itwasTuesday
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:39 AM)
itwasTuesday's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sub Boss

Uff at least it isn't default. Everything ok for now :/

Yeah, just checked this too, not even knowing what restricted mode was. And it is off by default, so I can believe them when they say it affects a small portion of users. So there's that.
Last edited by itwasTuesday; 03-20-2017 at 03:41 AM.
capitalCORN
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:39 AM)

Originally Posted by The Albatross

Given Google's corporate leadership on LGBTQ issues and awareness, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt in trying to figure out the filter. Most LGBTQ content is still available in Restricted mode (at least, according to articles that have looked into it), and so I'm assuming that the acceptable videos that are blocked in restricted mode -- makeup videos or some coming out videos (while others are available) -- will be fixed or tweaked as they improve the algorithm.

Restricted mode also blocks out conservative propaganda videos, atleast, according to this 2016 Breitbart article about it -- Not sure if breitbart can be linked, but google "Restricted mode conservative censors" and you get 26million results of right-wing outrage over YouTube blocking movies about "Judeo Christian Values."

Erm, Breitbart is false news personified. And for what reason is there to restrict LGBTQ content? Why the extra step?
The Last One
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:39 AM)
The Last One's Avatar
Bu-bu-bu-but what about this?



Such a trash decision.
smurfx
get some go again
(03-20-2017, 03:41 AM)
smurfx's Avatar

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son

No.

did they change this recently? i know i couldn't access age restricted content when i wasn't logged in not too long ago.
excelsiorlef
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:42 AM)
excelsiorlef's Avatar

Originally Posted by Altairax15

what makes something a "LGBTQ video"?

Trans makeup tutorial
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(03-20-2017, 03:42 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by Alavard

Personally, I don't think Youtube should have an 'I'm a bigot' button. As it stands, that's what it is.

Keep in mind, David Duke videos remain available in this mode, as do videos about sex toys.

I'm sure individual "mature content" videos dealing with adult oriented LGBTQ+ issues are there as well. They've laid out the factors that go into the determination so it's basically software. It won't be perfect but the intent seems to be judicious.

Originally Posted by Wafflecakes

If you aren't logged in don't you default to restricted mode?

Nope.

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

If you actually read the article you'd see how disgustingly discriminatory it is. This shouldn't be a thing at all. Give people a option to block certain channels or certain tags. That would be a actual improvement that everyone could use.

This is just all kinds of shitty.

I don't think it targets LGBTQ+ specifically at all if you look at their criteria. If a video is flagged it might also be about LGBTQ+ issues but that may not be why it was flagged.
Toad.T
Junior Member
(03-20-2017, 03:43 AM)
Toad.T's Avatar
Youtube knows they can hand wave any criticisms, due to the lack of viable competitors. It's sickening, to be frank.
Alavard
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:44 AM)
Alavard's Avatar

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

I don't think it targets LGBTQ+ specifically at all if you look at their criteria. If a video is flagged it might also be about LGBTQ+ issues but that may not be why it was flagged.

Yeah, I'm sure there are many other valid reasons to restrict a video on transwomen makeup tips or asexuality awareness.
sazzy
pronounced "sassy"
(03-20-2017, 03:44 AM)
sazzy's Avatar
isnt this blatantly open to misuse? what happens if a bunch of right wingers report a video showing Donald lying as inappropriate

someone check if the Access Hollywood tape is hidden in restricted mode
The Albatross
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:45 AM)
The Albatross's Avatar

Originally Posted by capitalCORN

Erm, Breitbart is false news personified. And for what reason is there to restrict LGBTQ content? Why the extra step?

ugh, read my post please instead of looking for key words and replying without reading. I'm not advocating Breitbart's article.
F0rneus
Tears in the rain
(03-20-2017, 03:45 AM)
F0rneus's Avatar
The very people who will use this shit feature, to avoid content that celebrate love and equality, are the very same fuckers who love to call people snowflakes because of "safe spaces".

Disgusting. Pathetic. Sickening. Fuck you YT, you spineless fucks.
Vital Tundra
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:47 AM)
Vital Tundra's Avatar
It's okay for the fact that it and the opposite are both censored, but when there is still so much hate that isn't being restricted you have a true problem. 1 place where LGBTQ is safe from school and home and work and stuff is no longer a place for them. By doing a blanket restriction on all things "adult/political" etc. and yet having so much still visible against LGBTQ, you put so many great people in a position where they are abandoned. YouTube should be actively working with them, not restricting them, especially if your blanket restrictions don't work.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(03-20-2017, 03:48 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by Alavard

Yeah, I'm sure there are many other valid reasons to restrict a video on transwomen makeup tips or asexuality awareness.

If including LBGTQ+ at all is their target, why do any such videos get through at all? Is it your position that they missed these?

I would say it is far more likely some videos get flagged by software that upon review might be unflagged, rather than such a video being specifically targeted. It's almost guaranteed innocuous political videos or others are caught up as well. The risk here is low as it has virtually no impact on creators given the fact there is no impact to monetization and this is a small number of people (who probably don't watch makeup videos anyway).
ZOONAMI
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:49 AM)
ZOONAMI's Avatar

Originally Posted by UglyPony

Don't think we need to blame youtube but the stupid advertisers forcing youtube to take these steps.

So bowing to their advertisers instead of taking a stand and we can't blame YouTube?
The Albatross
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:52 AM)
The Albatross's Avatar

Originally Posted by F0rneus

The very people who will use this shit feature, to avoid content that celebrate love and equality, are the very same fuckers who love to call people snowflakes because of "safe spaces".

Disgusting. Pathetic. Sickening. Fuck you YT, you spineless fucks.

I'd imagine that most conservatives aren't using this feature. Apparently, it also blocks some Pro-Trump campaign commercials, Fox News articles, and other conservative YouTUbe channels videos. As well as a ton of stuff that should be perfectly acceptable.

Having never heard of this "feature" until today, I googled it and most articles about it are outraged right-wingers arguing that YouTube is trying to fix the election to Hillary.

Originally Posted by ZOONAMI

So bowing to their advertisers instead of taking a stand and we can't blame YouTube?

According to an article linked earlier in the thread, videos blocked in restricted mode are still monetized normally.

“Restricted Mode is an optional feature used by a very small subset of users who want to have a more limited YouTube experience,” a YouTube spokesperson told Tubefilter in a statement. “Some videos that cover subjects like health, politics, and sexuality may not appear for users and institutions that choose to use this feature.”

On its support page, YouTube says it uses “community flagging, age-restrictions, and other signals to identify and filter out potentially inappropriate content” in Restricted Mode — which is turned off across the platform by default. And videos that are unavailable in Restricted Mode can still be monetized.

GIven that most LGBTQ videos seem unaffected by this, and Google's generally pro-LGBTQ awareness/advocacy stance, I'm going to guess that it's probably not done intentionally and the algorithm for it will be improved to prevent it. THough it sounds like some videos that have acceptable content but have tags, descriptions, titles, comments, or something that suggests otherwise, might still get blocked in restricted mode.

Fortunately, it's not default and Google simply says "A very small subset of users" have it turned on. Hopefully they improve the algorithm.
Last edited by The Albatross; 03-20-2017 at 03:58 AM.
Alienfan
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:53 AM)
Alienfan's Avatar
Those are some shit choice of words. They really need to clarify what they mean by "mature content"
UnemployedVillain
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:54 AM)
UnemployedVillain's Avatar

Originally Posted by UglyPony

Don't think we need to blame youtube but the stupid advertisers forcing youtube to take these steps.

I'm pretty sure Youtube has more leverage over advertisers than the other way around.
Alavard
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:56 AM)
Alavard's Avatar

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

If including LBGTQ+ at all is their target, why do any such videos get through at all? Is it your position that they missed these?

It is my position that the 'reasons' these videos have been flagged is clearly failing, and innocent videos of LGBT+ issues are getting caught in the crossfire. If I had to guess, based on their description of 'community flagging', it's because a bunch of bigots 'flagged' the videos as offensive, and youtube is just taking them at their word.

I would say it is far more likely some videos get flagged by software that upon review might be unflagged, rather than such a video being specifically targeted.

And given how it's working, it should be rolled back immediately.

It's almost guaranteed innocuous political videos or others are caught up as well.

Another reason it should be immediately rolled back.

The risk here is low as it has virtually no impact on creators given the fact there is no impact to monetization and this is a small number of people (who probably don't watch makeup videos anyway).

If it barely affects anyone, it serves no purpose, and should also be rolled back.
Messofanego
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:57 AM)
Messofanego's Avatar

Originally Posted by CheesecakeRecipe

This shouldn't even exist to begin with. Youtube needs to be taken to task over this until they rescind and get rid of this clearly hateful tool.

Allowing people to block vids by keyword is fine. People should have control over the content they want to see. Creating a blanket button that removes videos from LGBTQ+ creators under any guise demonizes them. Where's the button to get rid of all cishet romance content, then? Why is it only queer content and creators that are being targeted by this?

The tweet above has a conversation featuring a trans woman who does makeup tutorials, on top of documenting her progress in other areas like facial feminization surgery. As it turns out, most of the videos that were blocked by this filter don't contain any 'sensitive' material at all. There is nothing good about this.

Yup, this is terrible.
capitalCORN
Member
(03-20-2017, 03:57 AM)

Originally Posted by The Albatross

ugh, read my post please instead of looking for key words and replying without reading. I'm not advocating Breitbart's article.

But it's not a blanket 'conservative' ban, while the LGBTQ one is.
If fact. here's Inforwars: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel
Last edited by capitalCORN; 03-20-2017 at 03:59 AM.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(03-20-2017, 03:59 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by Alavard

It is my position that the 'reasons' these videos have been flagged is clearly failing, and innocent videos of LGBT+ issues are getting caught in the crossfire. If I had to guess, based on their description of 'community flagging', it's because a bunch of bigots 'flagged' the videos as offensive, and youtube is just taking them at their word.


And given how it's working, it should be rolled back immediately.


Another reason it should be immediately rolled back.



If it barely affects anyone, it serves no purpose, and should also be rolled back.

I'm sure the inputs can and will be tweaked. I refuse to assign a malicious or uncaring motive to this given its objective and clear evidence its over-flagging applies to other things.

There's clearly some demand for a feature like this or YouTube wouldn't waste resources on making it. It matters to the people who want it, but it doesn't really matter to people who don't want it. The effect seems minimal at best.

Originally Posted by capitalCORN

But it's not a blanket 'conservative' ban, while the LGBTQ one is.
If fact. here's Inforwars: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel

It's obviously not a blanket LGBTQ+ ban.
capitalCORN
Member
(03-20-2017, 04:02 AM)

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

It's obviously not a blanket LGBTQ+ ban.

There's enough innocuous stuff being pulled that it seems we're waiting for the inevitable.
Alavard
Member
(03-20-2017, 04:03 AM)
Alavard's Avatar

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

I'm sure the inputs can and will be tweaked. I refuse to assign a malicious or uncaring motive to this given its objective and clear evidence its over-flagging applies to other things.

There's clearly some demand for a feature like this or YouTube wouldn't waste resources on making it. It matters to the people who want it, but it doesn't really matter to people who don't want it. The effect seems minimal at best.

Youtube's response contained in the OP is pretty uncaring. If the inputs are failing, they have yet to acknowledge it. So far, Youtube would have us believe the problem is apparently on our side, for the way we understand it.
jacob armitage
Member
(03-20-2017, 04:04 AM)
jacob armitage's Avatar
Kim Justice did a video on this recently, thats what brought it to my attention. Real shame.

edit: wow, i just realized she had to move it from her main channel because of backlash. What is happening to the world.
Last edited by jacob armitage; 03-20-2017 at 04:09 AM.
sk3
Banned
(03-20-2017, 04:04 AM)
sk3's Avatar
User flagging and moderation is a way for corporations to cheap out on their duty to ensure a fair and balanced platform. I feel like once a medium reaches a certain size it should be considered a communications platform and certain laws should apply to ensure a free platform. Yeah it's not "free market capitalist principles blah blah" but thats the price of monopoly.

Twitter has the same problem, flagging is used as a weapon by mobs.
Kalnos
Member
(03-20-2017, 04:06 AM)
Kalnos's Avatar

Originally Posted by Yoshimitsu126

Sometimes I hate my CS major because of how tone deaf Google and others are.

that's dumb, just don't be a brogrammer
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(03-20-2017, 04:10 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by capitalCORN

There's enough innocuous stuff being pulled that it seems we're waiting for the inevitable.

A blanket ban would imply anything dealing with LGBTQ issues that is view-able in restricted mode shouldn't be. I don't think that's the case at all.

Originally Posted by Alavard

Youtube's response contained in the OP is pretty uncaring. If the inputs are failing, they have yet to acknowledge it. So far, Youtube would have us believe the problem is apparently on our side, for the way we understand it.

It says they're looking into it. If the concern is videos that lack content the platform thinks should be removed are still being removed they'll adjust.

I just don't see any reason to go after YouTube here as if their objective is to enable bigots or promote bigotry.
The Albatross
Member
(03-20-2017, 04:11 AM)
The Albatross's Avatar
I wanted to compare Restricted vs. Non-Restricted Mode on some of my favorite videogame channels particularly ones that don't usually have any objectionable content to see how it blocks out videos:

SuperBunnyHop (videos about videogame development, reviews, gameplay, but not usually anything offensive).

Non-restricted mode on Left, restricted mode on right

]

Seems like the majority of SuperBunnyHop videos are blocked.

Gaming Historian

Seems like only one or two are blocked, one particularly on the History of the ESRB

NoClip, channel with good videogame documentaries (although documentaries have developer interviews that sometimes have swears in them, though none of them are objectionable content)

Most seem blocked.

Originally Posted by capitalCORN

But it's not a blanket 'conservative' ban, while the LGBTQ one is.
If fact. here's Inforwars: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel

I don't think it's a blanket ban on LGBTQ videos, at least according to articles about it... Just to try it out myself, I searched "coming out videos" with and without, and while there are definitely a bunch blocked on the first page of results (although some are also "Response to XYZ coming out..." blocked), many, many (or most) are still there and not blocked. I can't tell what the difference content wise between a blocked coming out video and an unblocked video, but then again, I couldn't tell you why Gaming Historians video on the history of the ESRB is blocked, or Episode 2 of NoClip's Rocket League documentary is ok, but Episode 1 of the same documentary is blocked.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's totally, completely wrong to block videos that have absolutely no objectionable content in this restricted mode. But I also trust that YouTube will improve the algorithm to prevent this from happening. Google, more so than most companies (or hell even Democrats), has a pretty strong corporate record of LGBTQ awareness and advocacy, so I'd think that they'd work on improving this, at least, hope they are.

At least, I think the thread title is misleading. "YouTube's Optional Restricted Mode Blocks Some LGBTQ Content" seems more accurate, but maybe too long, or not as effective at getting attention about something that has the potential to be dangerous.
Last edited by The Albatross; 03-20-2017 at 04:37 AM.
Lev
Member
(03-20-2017, 04:15 AM)
Lev's Avatar
This filter seems like such a terrible idea since it is capable of marginalizing communities, such as the LGBTQ community on Youtube, regardless that the filter is optional.
Media
Member
(03-20-2017, 04:31 AM)
Media's Avatar
I wonder if my very subtle John/Sherlock video will now be restricted
Volimar
Member
(03-20-2017, 04:06 PM)
Volimar's Avatar
Tegan and Sara @teganandsara 2m2 minutes ago

Our videos for Alligator, That Girl + U-turn still restricted. None have "sensitive content" in them unless us dancing is "sensitive".

Nudull
Member
(03-20-2017, 04:13 PM)
Nudull's Avatar
Won't make a stand against racist, hateful content creators, but will happily censor the queer ones!

Thread Tools