mfioretti: youtube*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

21 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. Earlier this month, writer James Bridle published an in-depth look at the underbelly of creepy, violent content targeted at kids on YouTube – from knock-off Peppa Pig cartoons, such as one where a trip to the dentist morphs into a graphic torture scene, to live-action “gross-out” videos, which show real kids vomiting and in pain.

    These videos are being produced and added to YouTube by the thousand, then tagged with what Bridle calls “keyword salad” – long lists of popular search terms packed into their titles. These keywords are designed to game or manipulate the algorithm that sorts, ranks and selects content for users to see. And thanks to a business model aimed at maximising views (and therefore ad revenue), these videos are being auto-played and promoted to kids based on their “similarity” – at least in terms of keywords used – to content that the kids have already seen. That means a child might start out watching a normal Peppa Pig episode on the official channel, finish it, then be automatically immersed in a dark, violent and unauthorised episode – without their parent realising it.
    Advertisement

    YouTube’s response to the problem has been to hand responsibility to its users, asking them to flag videos as inappropriate. From there, the videos go to a review team that YouTube says comprises thousands of people working 24 hours a day to review content. If the content is found to be inappropriate for children, it will be age-restricted and not appear in the YouTube Kids app. It will still appear on YouTube proper, however, where, officially, users must be at least 13 years old, but in reality, is still a system which countless kids use (just think about how often antsy kids are handed a phone or tablet to keep them occupied in a public space).

    Like Facebook’s scheme, this approach has several flaws: since it’s trying to ferret out inappropriate videos from kids’ content, it’s likely that most of the people who will encounter these videos are kids themselves. I don’t expect a lot of six-year-olds to become aggressive content moderators any time soon. And if the content is flagged, it still needs to be reviewed by humans, which, as YouTube has already acknowledged, takes “round the clock” monitoring.

    When we talk about this kind of challenge, the tech companies’ response is often that it’s simply the inevitability of scale – there’s no way to serve billions of users endless streams of engaging content without getting it wrong or allowing abuse to slip by some of the time. But of course, these companies don’t have to do any of this. Auto-playing an endless stream of algorithmically selected videos to kids isn’t some sort of mandate. The internet didn’t have to become a smorgasbord of “suggested content”. It’s a choice that YouTube made, because ad views are ad views. You’ve got to break a few eggs to make an omelette, and you’ve got to traumatise a few kids to build a global behemoth worth $600bn.
    Facebook asks users for nude photos in project to combat revenge porn
    Read more

    And that’s the issue: in their unblinking pursuit of growth over the past decade, these companies have built their platforms around features that aren’t just vulnerable to abuse, but literally optimised for it. Take a system that’s easy to game, profitable to misuse, intertwined with our vulnerable people and our most intimate moments, and operating at a scale that’s impossible to control or even monitor, and this is what you get.

    The question now is, when will we force tech companies to reckon with what they’ve wrought? We’ve long decided that we won’t let companies sell cigarettes to children or put asbestos into their building materials. If we want, we can decide that there are limits to what tech can do to “engage” us, too, rather than watching these platforms spin further and further away from the utopian dreams they were sold to us on.
    https://www.theguardian.com/technolog...ra-wachter-boettcher?CMP=share_btn_tw
    Voting 0
  2. Facebook e Whatsapp sono i servizi preferiti e costituiscono l’accoppiata vincente della comunicazione in pubblico e in privato, sia per i giovani (entrambi all’89% di utilizzo) che per l’intera popolazione.

    Grande salto ha fatto registrare YouTube, che è passato da una penetrazione del 38,7% del 2013 al 46,8%, ma con una spiccata preferenza da parte dei giovani (73,9%).

    Anche Instagram ha fatto un balzo, passando dal 4,3% di utenti del 2013 al 16,8% del 2016 (con il 39,6% di giovani).

    Sorprende la persistenza di Google+ tra i minori di 29 anni ed emerge la forza di Amazon, che viene usato dal 39% dei giovani intervistati, seguito da eBay. Ancora allo stadio iniziale app come Telegram, Viber e Snapchat.

    Il rapporto evidenzia anche un divario profondo tra i consumi mediatici giovanili e quelli degli over 65. L’89,3% dei giovani dice di usare Facebook, contro il 16,3% degli anziani. Su YouTube il divario va dal 73,9% all’11,2% e su Twitter si passa dal 24% all’1,7% degli over 65.
    https://vincos.it/2017/02/20/censis-s...e-i-servizi-web-piu-usati-dai-giovani
    Voting 0
  3. L’Italia è il terzo mercato (di ricavi pubblicitari YouTube) dopo Inghilterra e Francia e quelli che guadagnano da 2-3mila euro a 20-30mila euro al mese non sono più di cinque o sei“.

    Quindi la responsabilità della scarsa qualità dei prodotti video è anche delle piattaforme web? Sembra di sì. Il meccanismo attraverso il quale piattaforme come YouTube pagano i videomaker si basa sul numero di visualizzazioni. Non tiene conto quindi della qualità dei prodotti. Non conta in un video quanti e quali attori compaiano, con quali tecniche sia girato, chi l’ha scritto, se sono stati adottati effetti speciali. Non conta nemmeno se il software usato per l’editing sia piratato o acquistato regolarmente. Conta il giudizio del pubblico. E a guardare il numero di visualizzazioni di tanti video, spesso il cattivo gusto conta più visualizzazioni delle opere d’arte. Questo ci restituisce un ritratto della maggior parte dei fruitori del web come persone abituate al trash, al kitch, al cattivo gusto. Il videomaker è quindi una figura che ha grosse responsabilità rispetto a quello che produce. Possiede il gessetto e una lavagna per essere un fautore di media literacy.

    Ma è possibile farlo sul serio se sul sito di una testata nazionale figurava una retribuzione di €5 per ogni video prodotto e se giornalisti elogiano il lavoro di un ragazzo che squittisce in centinaia di video da milioni di visualizzazioni dove testa e commenta videogame invece di prepararsi all’interrogazione del giorno dopo?
    http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/...asta-davvero-poco-per-esserlo/1619509
    Voting 0
  4. If TheKhanly truly made out like a bandit, netting $9.35 per ad per thousand views, and if each listener stuck out all 14 ads, TheKhanly made around $175,000 in two years.

    No matter how much or little he or she generated, in all likelihood TheKhanly, who could not be reached for comment, has made far more money off Follow The Leader than a weed dealer does off an ounce of kush, or a sex worker off a common trick.

    For that matter, uploading an album to a website requires arguably less savvy and effort than dealing drugs or prostituting. TheKhanly theoretically could be making bank off the least taxing form of counterfeiting possible, appealing to a guaranteed audience of dermatologists and schoolteachers and Target clerks who only need to type “korn leader” into a search box.

    The ease of finding this material is facilitated by Google's omnipresence, bringing us back to Google's mission.

    "Look at Google's » name," Steven Levy, author of In The Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives, told me. "It’s a really big number. Google all along has been about operating on a scale that was tough to imagine before the internet age.”

    While Google’s early competitors like Altavista and Yahoo may have included little perks like collecting news or weather, Google has turned into an aggregator of everything from merchandise prices to metrics for linguistic trends.

    The founder of Network Awesome, Jason Forrest, considers the site’s curatorial effort an antidote to “your Buzzfeeds and Mashables, which » get paid to focus on this very lowbrow mainstream."

    The easy access to David Lynch’s television commercials, a compendium of videos from Chicago’s drill scene, and a PBS documentary on Carl Jung, for example, validates Forrest’s claim that the site uses similar mechanisms as those clickbait powerhouses to “supply a never-ending stream of inspirations.” YouTube’s complicity in this stream cannot be understated, as Network Awesome is, at the end of the day, a mechanism for comprehending the multitudes contained by the archive.

    And the very need for an entity like Network Awesome says a great deal about how YouTube is handling its librarian duties. Searching for Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” several years after it was a hit gives you the sense that YouTube is less like the Library of Congress or Alexandria and more like a hoarder’s house where the plastic plates from the Labor Day barbecue are piled on top of the good china.

    You will find the official "Single Ladies" music video, several “lyric videos” boasting audio of varying quality, smart phone videos of the song performed live, parodies, and acapella covers. Google and YouTube are perhaps not archiving entities with a mission to preserve, rather with one to hoard information simply because they can, suffering from what the late Jacques Derrida would call “archive fever.”

    having your music listened to at the same place where people stream fail videos and ‘I like turtles’, it really makes music seem like trash, just junk you click on and forget about.”

    This viewpoint might ring a bit extreme—especially if you’re in the camp that believes the ability to jump from a remix of a girl getting hit with a shovel to a Laurie Spiegel composition is somehow kind of beautiful—it does raise the question of worth as human creative energy morphs into, simply, a piece of content.
    http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-...ost-of-youtubes-library-of-everything
    Voting 0
  5. Lo staff del “divo”, a questo punto, evidentemente, teme l’autogol: dopo aver sottratto Ponte ad un’esibizione davanti ad un pubblico ritenuto troppo “modesto” per le grandeur del giovane Gabry, gli utenti di Facebook e Twitter gli stanno dando ciò che probabilmente merita ovvero una lezione di educazione, etica e buone maniere. Ed è qui che, a qualcuno dello staff, deve venire il colpo di genio: segnalare a YouTube ed in ogni dove il carattere illecito, per violazione del diritto d’autore, del servizio giornalistico di Vera Tv Abruzzo.
    http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2014/...ritto-dautore-diventa-censura/1091647
    Voting 0
  6. non è democraticamente sostenibile che proprio la concessionaria pubblica del servizio radiotelevisivo – una società, peraltro, interamente controllata dallo Stato – chieda la “rimozione a strascico” di tutti gli spezzoni delle proprie trasmissioni da una piattaforma telematica senza guardare al loro contenuto, alla loro natura ed alle finalità perseguite dagli utenti che quei contenuti hanno caricato online.

    Non c’è lettura né interpretazione da azzeccagarbugli del contratto di servizio pubblico che tenga e a nulla vale sostenere che lo si fa per difendere il valore economico del prodotto della tv di Stato: la RAI non può proporre una visione tanto limitata e democraticamente insostenibile del diritto d’autore come se la privativa autorale valesse davvero a consentire a chi ha prodotto e trasmesso un contenuto di travolgere, in nome della tutela proprio portafoglio, ogni altro diritto ed interesse.

    Ma, a ben vedere, questa è anche la conclusione alla quale, legge sul diritto d’autore alla mano, si arriverebbe in relazione a molti dei contenuti che, in queste ore, la RAI sta chiedendo – e, sfortunatamente ottenendo – vengano rimossi da YouTube.
    http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2014/...-al-diritto-dautore-ce-di-piu/1027418
    Voting 0
  7. YouTube (Google) mostrerà il video codec VP9 con supporto alla risoluzione 4K nel corso del Consumer Electronics Show di Las Vegas. Il formato sarà presentato come alternativa all’H.265, sarà aperto e royalty-free. Per evitare la mancanza di supporto che ha impedito al VP8 di avere successo, la società ha siglato accordi con 19 partner tra i quali: Samsung, Sharp, Toshiba, ARM, Intel, Broadcom e Marvell. Al CES di Las Vegas, dimostrazioni saranno visibili negli stand di LG, Sony e Panasonic.
    http://www.macitynet.it/ces-2014-goog...trera-il-codec-vp9-con-supporto-al-4k
    Voting 0
  8. As the YouTube ecosystem has grown up, it’s gotten a lot more professional. With more professional video equipment, more professional editing equipment, more highly skilled creators. Huge networks have popped up — like Machinima, Maker, and Fullscreen — to help creators improve their content and reach. Some provide tools to boost views and reach new audiences, some help with production, some help improve monetization.

    But it’s become increasingly clear that these businesses will have to find other ways of making money — YouTube can’t be their only solution. That’s in part because YouTube takes nearly half of all ad revenues from partners. Not just that, but the typical YouTube ads have relatively low CPMs — all of which means that revenues aren’t as high as they would like and margins end up being constrained.

    The problem is that there’s no other solution for easily reaching the size and scale of audience that YouTube offers. For all the talk of some networks creating a YouTube alternative, it will be difficult for them to move the audience over. Not just that, but they won’t benefit from all the network effects and video search advantages that they get from being on YouTube.
    http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/16/the-...-paradox-and-the-off-youtube-solution
    Voting 0
  9. Zimerman ha giustificato l’eclatante gesto spiegando di aver già perso in passato numerosi contratti «perché i manager discografici mi dicevano: mi dispiace, ma è già su Youtube. La distruzione della musica a causa di Youtube è davvero enorme
    http://www.corriere.it/cultura/13_giu...1ce-cdd2-11e2-b79c-27069f42756a.shtml
    Voting 0
  10. Representatives of the classical music world said Zimerman's eruption was understandable and welcomed the fact he had highlighted a growing problem. "People filming concerts on their smartphones is a problem, and the person who did it deserves to be hounded out of the concert hall," said German pianist Sebastian Knauer, artistic director of the Mozart@augsburg festival, who is due to perform at the festival next week. "You see stuff on YouTube, and you think it's not possible that people take such liberties."
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/.../04/krystian-zimerman-youtube-protest
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 3 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: youtube

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle