Google scurries to fix growing YouTube crisis

HATEFUL VIDEOS

entire videos, then flagging and filtering content is a more difficult, expensive research endeavour — one that Google hasn’t focused on much, until now.

“We switched to a completely new generation of our latest and greatest machinelearning models,” said Schindler. “We had not deployed it to this problem, because it was a tiny, tiny problem. We have limited resources.”

In talks with big advertising clients, Google discovered the toxic YouTube videos flagged in media reports represented about one one-thousandth of a per cent of total ads shown, Schindler said.

Still, with YouTube’s size, that can add up quickly. And the attention on the issue coincided with mounting industry pressure on Google, the world’s largest digital adseller, for more rigid measurement standards. A frequent demand has been for Google to let other companies verify standards on YouTube.

Google is allowing this now, creating a “brand safety” reporting channel that lets YouTube ads be monitored by external partners like comScore Inc. and Integral Ad Science Inc., according to a company spokeswoman.

Google has made quick progress on its own, he said. Using machine-learning, and “a lot more people,” the company in the last two weeks flagged five times as many videos as “non-safe,” or disabled from ads, than before. “But it’s five (times) on the smallest denominator you can imagine,” Schindler said.

“Although it has historically it has been a very small, small problem. We can make it an even smaller, smaller, smaller problem.”

James Cakmak, an analyst at Monness Crespi Hardt & Co., said the advertising imbroglio may end up benefiting Google, because people’s online engagement “has segmented in two arenas. You can’t just ignore a platform with 1-billion-plus users indefinitely.’’

People spend time either on major platforms or niche destinations, Cakmak wrote in a note. “The channels of engagement should become abundantly clear, with dollars allocated accordingly. This is good news for the two sides of the spectrum, but everyone in between is likely to get squeezed, with at least a portion of the dollars, if not half or more, going to platforms like Google.’’

Some publishers and ad agencies have called on Google and rival Facebook Inc. to more actively police the content they host online. In a speech last week, Robert Thomson, chief executive of News Corp., a frequent Google critic, said the two digital companies “have prospered mightily by peddling a flat earth philosophy that doesn’t wish to distinguish between the fake and real because they make copious amounts of money from both.”

The YouTube ad boycott has pushed Google to beef up its policing. In its initial response, Google expanded its definition of hate speech to include marginalized groups. Now it’s adding a new filter to disable ads on “dangerous and derogatory content,” the company said. That includes language that promotes negative stereotypes about targeted groups or denies “sensitive historical events” such as the Holocaust.

Some researchers argue digital platforms should rely on humans to make these editorial decisions. Schindler said he has devoted more manpower to oversee brand safety issues, but stressed only machine intelligence could contend with YouTube’s size.

“The problem cannot be solved by humans and it shouldn’t be solved by humans,” he said.

Nor is the company willing to alter YouTube’s formula. Google lets any user upload videos and sets thresholds for which ones can run ads. Tight restrictions on ads could cut funding for independent video creators and step between advertisers and consumers, Schindler said.