YouTube Heroes is a real treat for the watchman



    Surely, many people living in the network for the last 10-15 years have come across the concept of "watchman". The definition was introduced from reality, where “watchmen” by lifestyle, rather than by profession, are found quite often.

    This is a vigilant grandmother who suffers from persecution mania and senile marasmus, who through the peephole of the door controls any step of her neighbors in the stairwell and makes statements to the local police officer. Or a lonely neighbor, who for a little louder turned on music in the middle of the day the very next day will turn you into a rowdy and a drug addict for the whole house. The insignificant chairman of the HOA, which requires a dozen unnecessary references and letters, but in general, he has lunch. Other examples can be thought up independently, each has something similar in their practice.

    Most of all, “watchman” as a “life style” is felt, nevertheless, in the network. “Someone is wrong on the Internet” is already a legendary saying. The endless stream of complaints, the search for loopholes in the rules of resources in order to punish people you disliked, and simply constant dissatisfaction with others - a typical sign of "watchmen".

    This phenomenon is sane people do not like and deny. Constant supervision, pressure and "slander" by the "janitors" do not give the right to make a mistake and just annoy, cause hatred and intolerance in any Internet community. A sensible administration seeks to thwart the development of “watchmen” on its resource, reserving the sole right to decide who is worthy of punishment and who is not.

    But not YouTube. Recently, the video service announced a new functionality - YouTube Heroes, which is ideally suited for the above-mentioned "watchmen".

    But first, let's talk about how YouTube moderated content before.

    It was


    In April of this year, The Verge prepared a lot of material , including about the work of moderators on YouTube (in addition, the article tells about the moderators of Facebook and Reddit). When the resource was resumed, YouTube was called a SQUAD (Safety, Quality, and User Advocacy Department) when it was purchased by Google. At the start, the state was only 10 people who monitored the observance of the rules and the content content of the resource by users. Google did not abolish this concept, and SQUAD continued its work as a customer support service and beyond.

    Working in support is far from being for the faint of heart. Constant clashes with aggression, indecent and brutal content unleash impressionable employees and lead to a change in consciousness and psychological trauma. Someone can abstract from work and not “drag her home,” but it’s a fact that Google hired psychotherapists to YouTube moderators to cope with stress.

    Since the explosive growth of YouTube in 2006, when more than 100 million commercials were uploaded, the administration faced a problem with the content of the content. Amateur and professional porn is the dominant violation so far. To all this, the clips of murders, beatings, crimes, cruel treatment of children and animals are added, and a large part of all this was checked and checked by SQUAD employees.

    Having official moderators on YouTube gives Google the opportunity to shape the agenda and influence public opinion. For example, skip one or another movie of a resonant event (murder or unrest), or delete it. It depends on the moderators what the world will see and what will not.

    A significant part of the burden on people was removed after the launch of the automatic program for checking content. In the first place, it was intended for copyright holders to remove copyright infringing videos, both automatically and according to the application principle from the rights holder.

    But only people can effectively identify content with inappropriate content. And until recently, official YouTube moderators were involved.

    What is YouTube Heroes?


    A certain share of skepticism is already caused by the name of the project launched on YouTube. Of course, for some, scammers may be heroes, but in civilized society, “watchmen” and mass complaints are not welcome. Because in all large structures there is an administrative apparatus, which without assistance should be able to judge what is acceptable and what is not.

    The YouTube Heroes project invites all YouTube users to participate in content moderation. And if earlier it was just a “complaint” button, now the resource builds a whole hierarchy around this process and offers not only “to be vigilant”, but also to earn some points on the reports, to move up the “career ladder of the janitor” and as the main prize - eventually get to a special party for the same "heroes".

    Actually, the video announcement of this project from the YouTube team:


    Work Hard!

    In the course of the video, users are offered to “roll up their sleeves” and to work for the benefit of their favorite resource as voluntary assistants to moderators. And if the starting call in adding descriptions and subtitles to video at first glance looks quite reasonable (actually, why not?), Then the real carnival begins, which the Internet has not seen for a long time.

    Let's step by step analyze all the offers from YouTube in the framework of the program YouTube Heroes.


    Report "unpleasant" video

    Well, there is no new functionality. The "complaint" button has been on YouTube before. The main problem is that with an increase in the number of such complaints, the status of a person who has taken the “watchman” path will grow.

    Having worked as the author of subtitles, commentator and “watchful citizen”, the user “watchman” will move to the first level and become “YouTube hero”.



    Until last week, the phrase “Hero of YouTube” had a slightly different meaning and color, which gives the whole story of the video hosting project a kind of grotesque and a touch of senility, at least for the Russian-speaking audience. Unfortunately, the author did not know whether this definition stuck in other parts of the Internet.

    But back to our sheep "heroes." Becoming a “YouTube hero”, the user will receive a certain amount of power, to which people like “watchmen” rush around the world.

    As soon as the user becomes a “Hero”, he has access to the internal leper colonycollaboration tools with the same as himself.



    The resource also offers exclusive trainings (on content moderation?) And live video communication with other “heroes”.



    If the previous two “hero level” is just working with the community and, on a large occasion, forming the community backbone that is loyal to the rules, then the third “hero level” gives rise to real concerns.



    What do they mean by “Super tools” and why exactly this item caused such a sharp reaction of the community?

    YouTube offers to go to the third stage of “heroism” and get the functionality of the mass video report and put this process on stream.



    Whether the complaints will be treated in a privileged manner, or whether the “heroes” will have some credibility, within which the content will be blocked, removed from the monetization program (which has recently been tightened) or deleted, the company is silent.

    The fact of the increase in the flow of complaints has not been supported by any SPP. In a situation of a one-level interaction between the user and the administration, the content must be truly provocative and irritable in order for the user to use the feedback form and report the violation.

    Creating the same system of encouragement for violations of the report, this is the way that all SPP try to avoid by any means. Because the desire to gain any advantages over other users leads to the appearance of “characters” (otherwise these people will not be named), who will bring everything under the rules to what they can reach. Even when the discrepancy to the rules is only formal, but in fact there is nothing to punish.

    This item was one of the reasons for the sharply negative community reaction to the YouTube Heroes program. On September 26, the rating of the official video is very indicative. It has already been viewed more than 2.4 million times. Just over 20,000 users liked the program, more than 700,000 still don't:



    Another problem, besides unreasonable complaints due to the slightest violations, can be vandalism.

    As you know, vandals are very resourceful, especially Internet vandals. Over the years, Wikipedia has been struggling with changing publications, trusting trusted users and internal moderators to decide whether to post a version of the article or not. In the case of YouTube Heroes, you can face the banal unfair competition, when the “heroes” will bestow or by personal motives infringe upon the authors of content that they do not like.

    Also, it is not necessary to exclude the Vandals-anarchists and acting according to their own convictions, to which, for example, the imageboard community can be counted. They quite often arrange “raids”, attacks and harassment of individuals, and with the emergence of the opportunity to “earn” themselves on the “buttons” in the framework of the YouTube Heroes program, their influence on the content of the resource can become quite noticeable.

    YouTube Heroes has already criticized a number of video bloggers. The most noticeable demarche was made by the popular English-speaking Flick PelDiePie Chelberg. His video has already been watched by 3.1 million people, and was approved by more than 218,000 (an absolute majority):



    In the video itself, Felix clearly shows how vandalism is still at the initial stage (editing subtitles) and, in general, is very skeptical about the project.

    As part of the same video, other creators of popular content on YouTube, the duet of Fine Bros , called the innovations "overwhelming."

    They can be understood, because up to this point even the authors of the video themselves had very limited rights in terms of moderating their own content and comments to it. The only solution available to them on the latter issue was to turn off comments on the published video at all. All the rest remained at the discretion of the administration.

    There was quite a heated discussion on Reddit.of this innovation from YouTube. TS very aptly noted that the resource creates its own detachment of "policemen" and a dream for SJW (Social Justice Warriors, an expanded analog of our "watchmen").

    They also indicated that the potential “hero” is:

    1. A person who has enough free time to watch dozens of videos and purposefully search for content that violates the rules;
    2. From point number 1 it follows that most likely it will be a person “offended” at the world, plus the unemployed.

    Doesn't it remind anyone of the description?

    But if we leave aside the question of the availability of such functionality for the masses and obtaining a privileged position without strict selection of personal qualities, we will see that YouTube is trying to put the problem of moderating video content, subtitles and comments on the shoulders of users, while not spending a penny.

    Even if you become a “hero” of the highest rank, you will receive handouts in the form of the opportunity to talk with the official moderators live, participate in the beta testing of YouTube solutions (you have to think about it, in order to be a beta tester in 2016, you will also have to work!) something ephemeral "corporate" called Heroes Summit.

    What did you want to achieve on YouTube with this program? Increasing community involvement in working on content? YouTube has no problems with the amount of content, there is a problem with quality and reward systems, because according to the video bloggers of the same Russian segment of YouTube, the fees for watching videos are incredibly small (one of the reasons for advertising third-party services and projects in the video series).

    Creating a community self-regulation mechanism?

    This can be true for such resources as Habr and Geektimes, like Lepre, where the invites system and closed hierarchical structure originally existed. Where each user is vested with the rights of other members of the community depending on their merits.

    The issuance of the "buttons" to everyone in a row for certain not the most difficult actions - like the distribution of combat grenades on the street. You never know if you gave it to an adequate person or a psychopath.

    Also popular now: