3 ms·

Because the money they make compared to how much content their serve is miniscule, and the only reason it works is scale. So if you want YouTube/Google/Twitter/

Because the money they make compared to how much content their serve is miniscule, and the only reason it works is scale. So if you want YouTube/Google/Twitter/Facebook to exist, you have to accept best effort algorithmic solutions, otherwise these services are not commercially viable and will cease to exist. Can we ask these companies to do better? Sure. Can we expect them to be perfect? Not really.

maxerickson 9y ago
If they are harming society they don't need to exist. Google could trivially spend $200 million a month on moderation and other editorial functions, they just would rather not.
- Eridrus 9y ago
  Net-net, I think Google's benefits outweigh it's issues. Economic analysis basically backs that up. I admit I haven't run the numbers on Google, but when I looked at YouTube, requiring human minimum wage moderators to review every video would cost billions of dollars a year - more than the entire site's revenue. So, sure, Google could drop another 200m on moderation, but I don't think that would get you to full moderation, so you still need algorithms in there somewhere.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  If you want a moderated service use one. Or build one. If Google becomes one (which they appear to be doing in some ways) I'll look for something that is more of a raw aggregator. Google doesn't need to be a social engineer. Nor do many of the others who have decided they know what is "harming society and doesn't need to exist". Like a F*n small town preacher on a crusade to remove a book with dirty words from the library that is.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Indeed, restraining mega-corporations and burning books are exactly the same kinds of thing.
    - mythrwy 9y ago
      What if the books are made by mega-corporations "just out to make money"? Attempting to restrict what can be published/viewed by do-gooders who think they know best is hardly a new gig. It just has different flavor now.
- ManlyBread 9y ago
  Who would moderate the moderators though? Didn't Facebook do this and had a problem with left-wing bias in the news they served?

maxerickson 9y ago

If they are harming society they don't need to exist. Google could trivially spend $200 million a month on moderation and other editorial functions, they just would rather not.

Eridrus 9y ago
Net-net, I think Google's benefits outweigh it's issues. Economic analysis basically backs that up. I admit I haven't run the numbers on Google, but when I looked at YouTube, requiring human minimum wage moderators to review every video would cost billions of dollars a year - more than the entire site's revenue. So, sure, Google could drop another 200m on moderation, but I don't think that would get you to full moderation, so you still need algorithms in there somewhere.
mythrwy 9y ago
If you want a moderated service use one. Or build one. If Google becomes one (which they appear to be doing in some ways) I'll look for something that is more of a raw aggregator. Google doesn't need to be a social engineer. Nor do many of the others who have decided they know what is "harming society and doesn't need to exist". Like a F*n small town preacher on a crusade to remove a book with dirty words from the library that is.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Indeed, restraining mega-corporations and burning books are exactly the same kinds of thing.
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    What if the books are made by mega-corporations "just out to make money"? Attempting to restrict what can be published/viewed by do-gooders who think they know best is hardly a new gig. It just has different flavor now.
ManlyBread 9y ago
Who would moderate the moderators though? Didn't Facebook do this and had a problem with left-wing bias in the news they served?