How YouTube REALLY Works

[supersonic123123]

i typed 8pkh-UTQiMU And i found my trip to england

[supersonic123123]

@derick1259 all through ur body

[RandomDirectors]

Everyone flag and dislike this video to see if it will really bring it down...

[WhiteDragon103]

@RandomDirectors There is no way of knowing whether Google changed their algorithms again xD

[downsystem13]

did he just say "showing your nipples?"

[WhiteDragon103]

@downsystem13 I'm not sure why you are referencing me indirectly with "he" instead of "you", but yes, I did say that.

[downsystem13]

@WhiteDragon103 what about all the other people who referenced you indirectly? lol

[uilium]

Just anyone can ruin anyone? If your flagged for no reason will YouTube catch this, and not flag you?

[PAINmedia]

i Flagged this video just to piss him off :D

[WhiteDragon103]

@PAINmedia lolwat

[makafuckas2]

f*cking right

[shingabo]

thanks

[shingabo]

where do they stored all the videos uploaded every second around the world?

[WhiteDragon103]

huge ass servers

[BenStilller]

good video!

[Protagonist]

Good vid. Ive been wondering what all the fuss was about.

Though its not very democratic, it's better than no system at all. Im sure they'll improve it with time.

[ToeInspector]

Censorship.

[Protagonist]

Censorship? Only porn and tv shows.

Ive never had a problem with you-tube. I fail to see what exactly they're censoring?

[ToeInspector]

Ron Paul.

[cozmikdebris19]

o stars because you said that the algorithm that YouTube has put in to practice is democratic.

[alexmigda]

i'm gonna flag all yo shit haha

[NixonTech2071]

this video is proof of denial.

[JonathanClement140]

And I suppose you have a better explanation, Mr. "I BELIEVE IN PROPHECIES"?

[NixonTech2071]

Your a cyber whore for the new policies.

[WhiteDragon103]

lol

[NixonTech2071]

are you one too?

[WhiteDragon103]

No, I just think that people like to pretend that there is some great evil they must fight because of a lack of direction elsewhere, so they come up with silly conspiracy theories like what with these new policies.

[FusionNinjin]

nipples will never be seen on youtube due anti nudety american stuff, where body is taboo~

[RedDaVincy]

Thank you for that, friendly dragon-type person :)

How did you find this out?

[LastReplaySC]

hey pal, check out the audio scanner youtube has, it can scan everything and put audio to search term ..... you say fuck and u get fl aging points and the counter blocks for a time period .... so stop spreading MS BS.

check out google labs for proof ... noob

[Parrot486]

How is that democracy in action? The people voted it to the top, and the mods demote it because it conflicts with their personal feelings. 1000 people watch and 10 people flag; the video gets demoted because 10 people got their feelings hurt. If you don't like a video then don't watch it. The world revovles for no one and nothing makes your opinion better than anothers. Demotion is censorship of opinions and opinions are votes; votes of the people is democracy.

[blackflower75]

Thx you just saved me writing all that lol...I totally agree....

[timlearybedead]

It's still not right that videos with simple swearing and violence are being demoted, I mean 99% of the best content on Youtube contains swearing and/or violence. Of course that's just my opinion, but it's also the majority opinion. I see no justification in that. What they need to do is implement better parental controls for youtube accounts.

[numberoneminime]

LOL! iv gotten that error of monkeys LMAO !! im like LOL! wut?! xD

[miamimanni]

Thunderf00t's video didn't claim that youtube demotes video via monkeys, but through an algorithm, try using a dictionary.

Youtube quote, "Videos that are considered sexually suggestive, or that contain profanity, will be algorithmically demoted." No mention of monkeys.

[WhiteDragon103]

Wow dude, seriously... Are you being serious? Do I need to point out that what you just said is pretty embarrassing? Deleting it would be doing you a favor man.

[miamimanni]

o.O? Youtube is demoting videos through an algorithm, you seem to be claiming that no such algorithm exist?

[WhiteDragon103]

Watch the fucking video again and this time pay attention dude.

[miamimanni]

So what is your source that shows that Youtube did not recently change it's algorithm? I did not say that youtube doesn't use a democratic system of demotion; just there's a recent change in the algorithm. Also, you make a claim and cite no source. Furthermore, why would they recently announce that they would algorithmically demote videos? I'm open minded to me being mistaken. Just, all because you make a video, am I suppose to believe you? Sry 4 being skeptical. Also sry 4 being rude earlier.

[miamimanni]

K, I did a bit more research. I agree that it's being blown a bit overboard, especially when reading the comments. But you have to admit there is a difference to youtube now. I disagree with the idea that the change is insignificant.

[WhiteDragon103]

Check out the discussion I had with skepticsage in the comments section of his video response.

[miamimanni]

I see. But there is some guess work going on here, which I think the real problem. My idea of this algorithm was a system recognizing video content based on having an AI analyzing comments,description,etc. to determine video content.

Like demoting a video based on multiple comments containing the word sex, may suggest the video itself is sexual. IDK, I'm not a programmer. We can agree that it's not an impossible implementation.

[WhiteDragon103]

I think YouTube's new policies are "a far cry from some kind of anti-free speech conspiracy, targeting atheists, that will bring YouTube to its demise. It will pretty much be how it always was, but giving moderators (and people who flag) the option to have more intermediate effects between leaving the video, removing it, or requiring an age verification."

[HHamanyy]

thx this was great 5\5 make more :) we love you :p

[WhiteDragon103]

Who is "we"? o_o

[HHamanyy]

me and my ghosts friends :)

[Eshla92]

I am just all for Freedom of Speech. I think the best way to do this is by something such as the internet, and more specifically, something like Youtube. But youtube is no longer free and I think that the world would be a much better place if the United Nations made a completly free, world wide (maybe even in North Korea and places where Youtube is banned?) video hoasting server, where anyone can post their ideas and likes.

It would solve so many problems, mostly oppression and other issues.

[Eshla92]

I would not pass a law making Youtube goverment owned. Although the goverment did that with the Northern Rock bank and that doesn't make us a communist country.... but I would make a server very much like youtube, but with zero censorship. It would guarantee the freedom of my people for generations to come, and much like the internet and google, the 'dirty' stuff would only be found to you IF YOU WENT LOOKING FOR IT.

[Eshla92]

Thank you for the explanation, but I still think that it is a bad system. To be honest if I was Prime minister of England, I would make it law that youtube (or something like it) must always exist with no censorship. None at all. Porn, terrorism videos, violence, democratic calls to arms, everything should be allowed.

Personally I think youtubes new policies are a big hit against free-speech, and free-speech is the only thing keeping us from slavery and surfdom.

[WhiteDragon103]

Heh, that's kind of extreme and creepy.

[Eshla92]

I don't think so. I value my freedom of speech, to be honest I would allow ANYTHING on youtube, and I think censorship should be made illegal for such things.

We could have some way of making the pornogrophy (and other stuff) for 18's+ only, like we do now in a way. But I don't think its unreasonable to want freespeech.

Besides I am an Atheists, and any videos I post saying that God doesn't exist will inevitably get Flagged by Creationists, even though they NEVER contain any profanity.

[WhiteDragon103]

But think about the deepest, darkest extremes of what it would mean to have absolutely -no- rules, what kinds of things would be posted? Things that I would rather not mention or think about. Bullying and spam would run rampant, there would be people posting child porn, digging up bodies and having sex with them, gutting animals alive and everything in between. If you honestly want to stand up for people who intend to create stuff like that I'd prefer that you stay the hell away from me.

[WhiteDragon103]

But on the legal note, YouTube is private property. The servers belong to someone and they can delete whatever the hell they so choose to delete. If you implemented a law that would make YouTube unable to do "censor" or otherwise place restrictions, how far would people take that law? Would it mean so much as having it illegal to deny or resist other people putting billboard advertisements or hate messages on your front lawn?

[WhiteDragon103]

In that case, that would practically render private ownership laws as void, and England would become a communist country.

[Eshla92]

Well I am not in anyway saying that child porn (or other stuff) is good. But I think that the risk of censorship and overcensorship is too great. I also know that Creationists and people against freedom of speech will abuse this new youtube system.

There is PLENTY of pornography and bad stuff on the internet... just search google. It IS THERE, but you don't go looking for it. In the same way its ok for youtube, you can find it if you want, but it won't be flung in your face.

:)

[LilGunman]

I like the unbiased, scientific explanation. Thank you. 5/5/.

[Drakomis]

Like the explanation. I agree that for anyone to think that any group of individuals, or one person, to moderate or observe the content of uploads is quite stupid. Usually this process is all automated, as with the amount of information uploaded to Youtube quite surpasses anyone's capability to monitor it without the help of a computerized system.

[windham666]

It is like an election where no ID required to register and your can vote as often as you like. the election bureau will just knock off a couple hundred votes here and there, to even things out they way they want it.

[WhiteDragon103]

I think that if things get out of hand, YouTube will write code to prevent unlimited voting capabilities having an effect on ranking, and disabling the effect for new accounts.

[mattblackcat]

It does not account for wilful directed and orchestrated vandalism.

Google has the same problem with blacklisting interweb searches - once you are blacklisted and demoted to the bottom of the pile it is near impossible to get unjust flagging or algorythmic flagging removed.

[drorharush]

I hope you are right

[Hedning1390]

How is algorithmically demoting videos on the 'Most Viewed,' 'Top Favorited,' and other browse pages democracy? If something has 30k views and another has 10k views shouldn't the 30k be at the top? isn't that what the viewers have voted for?

[WhiteDragon103]

Because the demoting would be done by the people who use YouTube, by pressing the Flag button. It would still be giving the power to the people.

Though, hopefully YouTube has implemented something to prevent abuse of the flagging system.

[Hedning1390]

That's not what they said they were doing. And btw how is 100 negative votes from a singe user who disagrees with the message fair? Oner person one vote, unless you agree with the Youtube owners, then you get 100 votes.

And why should it affect the 'Most Viewed,' and 'Top Favorited'? If something is top favorited it shouldn't matter how many users flagged it. If it is most favorited then it should show as that.

[newbetterandhappy]

We'll see. Youtube has been fine so far. If youtube starts looking like standard corporate media trash, there are certainly other places to go, on and off the net.

Eight years of Bush has made the world aware of how billionaire demagauges work. We'll be watching.

This mega power to flag is sure to be abused by creationists, and other religious wackos, expect Thunderf00t's videos to disappear, as well as those critical of Islam and $cientology.

[mrfoxtalbot]

Flag wars will render this system useless.

[MishaV84]

Suprisingly to the point.

[WhiteDragon103]

Thanks. lol :3

[dreamdewil]

"Democracy in action"

Unfortunately the majority isn't always right.

Also, special interest groups engage in flagging campaigns against videos they don't like. Not very democratic.

[WhiteDragon103]

I'd assume that YouTube would be very careful in designing the algorithm to make sure that such incidents would not happen. For example; only one flag per user is counted. And if new accounts are spawned to counteract this, none of the new accounts will be able to flag effectively until a month of consistent use has gone by since activation.

[bettySwollox]

WhiteDragon103, I gotta agree with dreamdewil on this one. He is right about the special interest groups and their sad little flagging campaigns. Check out what Thunderf00t has to say in the beginning of his video title "Spineless Vermin!". He experienced this "democracy" of which you speak, first hand. Unfortunately, it resulted in that video being taken down by youtube.

[SeventhSun]

@dreamdewil

"Unfortunately the majority isn't always right."

Well said. Of course. There is a danger in trusting them too much. The key is still their manipulation hee hee.

[erntemashine]

BANANA!!! >.>

[WhiteDragon103]

Thanks.

[SirBroadsword]

All this will mean is that people who get their videos wrongly flagged (such as atheists who have their videos wrongly flagged by Christians) will kick up more of a stink, knowing that being flagged, even if does not result in the video being removed, will still damage their standing...

[WhiteDragon103]

I'd assume that YouTube would be very careful in designing the algorithm to make sure that such incidents would not happen. For example; only one flag per user is counted. And if new accounts are spawned to counteract this, none of the new accounts will be able to flag effectively until a month of consistent use has gone by since activation.

[SirBroadsword]

WhiteDragon103:

I see... Are those concepts what YouTube has actually implimented or just your ideas? Assuming they are the former, I'd still be worried about single disgruntled users flagging less popular videos about less popular search terms just for the sole purpose of being an ass... Essentially I'm worried that this gives any one user too much sway over a less popular video...

[WhiteDragon103]

To be honest, I do not have not actually looked over the source code for YouTube's unique search process, but I do know how search engines work and what programmers do to sort the results. I am using Occam's Razor to determine what is the most likely outcome of YouTube's new policies, using my education as a Programmer to help me narrow down that is realistic. I am making an educated guess that YouTube will use flagging to determine video relevance for search terms, and is taking the precautions

[WhiteDragon103]

what is realistic*

[WhiteDragon103]

As I stated in my video, YouTube receives about an hour of content every 30 seconds. It would be far too costly to rely on workers to sift through all that content for language. To say that a computer algorithm will analyze videos for opinions "it" doesn't like is a stretch into the realm of science fiction and conspiracy theory. The most reasonable thing to assume is that YouTube will use flag counts to decrease ranking, because of the ease of processability.

[SirBroadsword]

Well again, that would only worry me with regards to less popular videods wwith more obscure keywords or combinations of keywords...

[WhiteDragon103]

Possible, but then again, if your video is the only video that contains the word "splodge", it will be the only video displayed when someone types "splodge". I think overall YouTube has bigger fish to fry than what you are thinking of.

[SirBroadsword]

*Nods* True, true... Actually, there are, in fact, no less than 241 results for splodge... :)

All of them seem to have less than a couple of thousands views and thus (I think) could easily be impacted by a single flag... But you're probably right, bigger fish to fry...