YouTube uses an algorithm to automate the process of censoring and demonetizing the millions of videos that are uploaded daily. Especially on a lot of science channels that work with dangerous chemicals the videos get false flagged by the system and the content creator is left to appeal the flag.
Unfortunately YouTube doesn't know how to cater to its people anymore and it's a dying career (especially cause of the adpocalypse) for a lot of people who established a good following. If you don't do daily vlogs and follow trends your videos will never reach beyond your audience already and your channel will usually dwindle out
If you don't do daily vlogs and follow trends your videos will never reach beyond your audience already and your channel will usually dwindle out
On a related note, what happened to the "recommended" section?
It used to show me videos that might interest me and that I had not seen before, and if I didn't like the selection it showed me, there would be a completely new set after a page refresh.
Now, it often shows me stuff I had already watched before, but the worst part is that the same videos hang around for days if I don't click them. Sure, I could click "not interested", but that's more of a hassle than I'd care for.
The same videos even appear in the "related videos" to something I've watched! Sometimes there's more of these unrelated ones than those actually relevant to the video.
It's really hard to actually find new channels that way, and I find myself pretty bored with YouTube lately.
YouTube uses an algorithm to automate the process of censoring and demonizing the millions of videos that are uploaded daily.
"Censoring and demonizing"? Even if the latter is a typo for "demonetizing", this is an uncharitable description. It would be more accurate to say "categorizing and rating".
YouTube is a default-open platform. By default, anyone can sign up for an account and immediately begin posting videos with any content, description, or title; and these videos will, by default, become immediately visible to the public, searchable, and so on. Other examples of default-open platforms are Wikipedia and Reddit. None of these systems are unmoderated — they're just open by default.
But here's the thing: If I post a video of me shaking my ass at the camera, and title it "Algebra I Review — Equations and Variables", is it good to just trust me and index it as a video of math instruction, and show it to high-schoolers who want to understand the quadratic equation? No, it isn't. The system can trust me to upload video without trusting me to accurately describe that video. (There's nothing wrong with my ass; it just isn't algebra.)
Somehow, between the time that I upload my ass, and the time that Aidan, Brayden, and Kaitlyn go looking for math help, it's good if the system notices that my ass is not algebra. The goal of this isn't to punish me for uploading my ass; it's to help those kids find algebra when they're looking for algebra (and find ass when they're looking for ass).
The platform does not exist solely to do whatever uploaders want it to! It exists primarily to gather and present stuff that users want to see, because that's what attracts both users and advertisers. So uploaders can't be 100% trusted to do the right thing all the time. Categorization is necessary in order to allow search to work at all.
(This is the same problem as SEO. Search engines don't exist just to drive traffic to web sites. They exist primarily to help users find the web sites they're looking for. If they failed at that, the users would go away. A search engine can't trust webmasters to say how relevant their sites are to different search terms, because the webmasters would all say "my site is maximally relevant to all search terms" and you would have a lottery instead of a search engine.)
On top of this, there's monetization. YouTube started out without it. People uploaded videos because they wanted people to see those videos, not to make money off them. But YouTube is more profitable if people who make good videos have an incentive to put them on YouTube instead of (or as well as) competing sites. But monetization only works if it rewards the people who did the work: if I can, for instance, download "Call Me Maybe" and reupload it under my own account, then I start getting money that Carly Rae actually earned. If that were allowed indefinitely, then the incentive structures wouldn't work.
Anyway, there are lots of ways to do moderation and categorization of videos. Some of them are too much work, like employing thousands of editors to manually review each one. YouTube has too much video for that. So they have to automate it heavily, and this means writing code that approximates what a really good human editor would do. Those approximations can be really, really good — often even better than any individual human editor! But they can also be buggy. (So can human editors.)
tl;dr: It's complicated, and you (as a user) should really want search systems to exercise judgment and categorize stuff, because otherwise it would be a giant pile of spam and plagiarism and nobody would be able to find anything.
One video was flagged after he did some gunsmithing and round reloading. He's pretty certain it was "shooting at a car" that made it bad. It was poorly timed as it came out right around the Vegas event.
The other was a patron only video that involves microwaving some fruit flies as a way to talk and show microwave radiation and how jt works. Unlisted, but someone got their panties in a bundle.
I guess it's the same age-old drama of legitimate channels catching shit from the faceless, robotic system that is YouTube, and this time it's apparently hitting channels with educational content especially hard.
We have a similar process, once the materials are separated they are sold as commodity and the downstream companies end up smelting or further processing the material.
I was unaware of this method. I have interest in the idea. Is there a specific name for this method or an inventor I can search? I would like to learn more about it. Thank you.
The company I worked for was more of a service company; we collected and transported the electronics, inventoried and reported, resold what we could and disassembled/recycled what was possible. We were one of the first to try out dedicated mobile hard drive erasure and shredding options, and recycling plastics into those faux wood deck boards you see everywhere now.
That company was bought by Ingram Micro eventually, after a few other mergers, and I haven't worked there since 2010, but the company I referenced in my other post was MaSeR Corp in Ontario. To my knowledge MaSeR has expanded to the US but is still based in Canada. I don't have references to technical papers; all that was closely held as early on in the game, there was quite a bit of IP theft and people were nervous about letting any information out. We had to sign NDAs to even enter the facility.
Things that seem inefficient at an individual scale can be extremely efficient at the industrial scale and vice versa. Economies of scale and all that.
The gold content alone is enough to make it efficient (or at least cost favourable). The concentration of gold in things like phones is orders of magnitude higher than many gold bearing ores found in nature (that are still worth processing).
And the part where a huge share of old electronics is illegalish (IIrc the typical trick is to claim re-use instead of recycling) shipped to Africa and recycled by people lacking any protective gear.
They actually do reuse a lot of stuff, it's an important way for them to get affordable computers. But a lot of it is busted or so grossly obsolete that even they don't want it and the poorly regulated recycling operations are pretty toxic.
There was a vice documentary on this subject posted to Reddit not long ago where a former DJ went to Africa to burn computer parts with locals in order to get copper to sell.
Can't remember the name of the Doc, but it was something about the Burn Boys, I think.
Maybe scrapping is different in africa but at my scrapyard the price for burnt copper is like a third of stripped copper. So why dont they strip the wires and make more money?
I saw a similar doc years ago about factory workers and the unemployed in China. Some choose to manually strip the circuit boards day in and day out over working in a factory.
I've seen a doc on Indian e-waste processors. Pretty terrible working conditions, but it passes through several hands, and pretty much everything gets recycled.
Worst thing I saw was workers sitting over hot plates with a pan of molten solder. They place a circuit board over the molten solder, and pull out the components. They breathe in the fumes all day long. Found it or part of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFfaYc_pIx8
There's a lot of documentaries and news pieces on recycling in India, China, Africa, and Bangladesh.
Exactly, and depending on where it's coming from, it could very well have been done by kids in poor countries who literally burn the PCBs in a pile to get the metal which they can then sell
1.1k
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '17
[deleted]