> We use machine learning to evaluate content against our advertiser guidelines. Sometimes our systems get it wrong, which is why we’ve encouraged creators to appeal. Successful appeals ensure that our systems get better and better<p>There's been bad press about this for months now. People with conservative viewpoints claimed to be facing similar issues<p>The cost of a false positive seems extremely high. Why would they depend on ML for high influencers?
> We use machine learning to evaluate content against our advertiser guidelines.<p>This means Google violates civil rights law by maintaining a list of phrenological behavior based on racial, sexual, and demographic data.<p>Advertisers choosing videos to show up in also means selecting which videos to filter out. This means Google has a list of acceptable behavior for blacks, gays, and women to perform such filtering.
"Our machine learning algorithm got it wrong" is the corporate version of when a kid blames their own bad behavior on an imaginary friend.<p>Sorry but you're the one running the ML algo. And if it fucks up, you're responsible.
The ones that stay monetized are getting targeted by anti-lgbt group advertisements. Which of course spawns "let's react" videos, which are hilarious in a life gives you lemons kind of way.
The only reasonable thing would be to only restrict things that are actively breaking the law. Of course, that runs into breaking <i>whose</i> law, but I don't want to digress.<p>Maybe filter your advertising platform better, if your advertisors have oppinions. That's not maybe the easiest thing, but YouTube has hundreds of people to throw at forced requirements, and I'm a single person at a small company that gets these requests daily, and my give-a-damn is busted
To be honest it's a business move lots of the LGBT Pro or Contra videos have a lot of say the least "controversial" comments on youtube.