6 ms·

While you're considering zaphar's post and mentally designing your "get rid of ISIS videos" system, remember that YouTube gets 400 hours of video uploaded every

While you're considering zaphar's post and mentally designing your "get rid of ISIS videos" system, remember that YouTube gets 400 hours of video uploaded every minute

dragonwriter 9y ago
So, you’d only need an average of 18,000 people on duty around the clock to do review of everything uploaded to YouTube. At $15/hour pay, that's only about $2.4 billion/year for reviewers; all told, with supervision and other overhead, maybe on the order of $7.5 billion/yr. It's probably not impossible for Google, and it wouldn't even make Google unprofitable. But it would make YouTube unprofitable.
- packetslave 9y ago
  It's also (probably) not a scalable solution. Consider two additional points: 1) 400/minute is only the most recent public number I could find a source for. It appears to be from 2015. 2) In 2013 that number was 100/hour and in 2011 it was 48/hour. The growth of user-created video content isn't exactly slowing down (vlogs, etc.)
- zaphar 9y ago
  Don't forget that your 15/hr employee is going to have to detect fake news despite their own personal biases. These are the same people that reshare fake news when on Facebook. You probably need some specialized training and more than one person to vet that news.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- wolco 9y ago
  15 dollars an hour? Those jobs would go to a place where the wage was 1.50 an hour or worse .15 an hour.
- kuschku 9y ago
  You probably wouldn’t need to review every video – videos from YouTube partners such as Disney or VEVO partners could probably be exempt in the first place. Then you probably could let an AI pre-sort most of the videos, and have humans only skip through those videos to verify the AIs decision, instead of having to analyze them all at 1x speed. You’d probably only need a tenth of the manpower in that situation. And YouTube might even still be profitable with that.
- spacemanmatt 9y ago
  TIL there are still people who think Google brute-forces anything.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    The post you are responding to does not indicate anything about my belief in what Google currently does (well, except that it makes the amount of money it's financial reports say it makes.)
- gwern 9y ago
  Don't forget: Google etc already gets a ton of criticism for their use of manual screening as it is - it burns people out, gives them 'PTSD', is exploitative, etc. So to account for turnover, psychiatric healthcare benefits, extra salary (remember overhead is as much as salary), and figure you would have to double that cost to eliminate criticism (not that it would but let's say it did). That actually would be larger than Google's total profits.
spacemanmatt 9y ago
Weird, the porn seems to be PERFECTLY censored and the ads are laser-targeted. Google is a world leader in ML and AI. You really think this is so difficult for them?
- p2t2p 9y ago
  We have different YouTube probably. I can easily search and find fetish porn videos. The fact that we don't see it recommended videos doesn't mean it not exists.
- packetslave 9y ago
  > Google is a world leader in ML and AI. You really think this is so difficult for them? Yes
- lotu 9y ago
  > Ads are laser targeted? You clearly don't work in ads, we don't manage to have ads that render 100% of the time. Everyone thinks we have super awesome targeting that tracks your every move but most of that is marketing bullshit from people are trying to work for advertisers. Here's a huge amount are targeted do are you in this area, are you in the 18-24 male demo, and did you visit website XYZ in the past 30 days.

While you're considering zaphar's post and mentally designing your "get rid of ISIS videos" system, remember that YouTube gets 400 hours of video uploaded every minute

dragonwriter 9y ago

So, you’d only need an average of 18,000 people on duty around the clock to do review of everything uploaded to YouTube. At $15/hour pay, that's only about $2.4 billion/year for reviewers; all told, with supervision and other overhead, maybe on the order of $7.5 billion/yr. It's probably not impossible for Google, and it wouldn't even make Google unprofitable. But it would make YouTube unprofitable.

packetslave 9y ago
It's also (probably) not a scalable solution. Consider two additional points: 1) 400/minute is only the most recent public number I could find a source for. It appears to be from 2015. 2) In 2013 that number was 100/hour and in 2011 it was 48/hour. The growth of user-created video content isn't exactly slowing down (vlogs, etc.)
zaphar 9y ago
Don't forget that your 15/hr employee is going to have to detect fake news despite their own personal biases. These are the same people that reshare fake news when on Facebook. You probably need some specialized training and more than one person to vet that news.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wolco 9y ago
15 dollars an hour? Those jobs would go to a place where the wage was 1.50 an hour or worse .15 an hour.
kuschku 9y ago
You probably wouldn’t need to review every video – videos from YouTube partners such as Disney or VEVO partners could probably be exempt in the first place. Then you probably could let an AI pre-sort most of the videos, and have humans only skip through those videos to verify the AIs decision, instead of having to analyze them all at 1x speed. You’d probably only need a tenth of the manpower in that situation. And YouTube might even still be profitable with that.
spacemanmatt 9y ago
TIL there are still people who think Google brute-forces anything.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  The post you are responding to does not indicate anything about my belief in what Google currently does (well, except that it makes the amount of money it's financial reports say it makes.)
gwern 9y ago
Don't forget: Google etc already gets a ton of criticism for their use of manual screening as it is - it burns people out, gives them 'PTSD', is exploitative, etc. So to account for turnover, psychiatric healthcare benefits, extra salary (remember overhead is as much as salary), and figure you would have to double that cost to eliminate criticism (not that it would but let's say it did). That actually would be larger than Google's total profits.

spacemanmatt 9y ago

Weird, the porn seems to be PERFECTLY censored and the ads are laser-targeted. Google is a world leader in ML and AI. You really think this is so difficult for them?

p2t2p 9y ago
We have different YouTube probably. I can easily search and find fetish porn videos. The fact that we don't see it recommended videos doesn't mean it not exists.
packetslave 9y ago
> Google is a world leader in ML and AI. You really think this is so difficult for them? Yes
lotu 9y ago
> Ads are laser targeted? You clearly don't work in ads, we don't manage to have ads that render 100% of the time. Everyone thinks we have super awesome targeting that tracks your every move but most of that is marketing bullshit from people are trying to work for advertisers. Here's a huge amount are targeted do are you in this area, are you in the 18-24 male demo, and did you visit website XYZ in the past 30 days.