4 ms·

The problem isn't technical at all. In fact, the problem stems from trying to use technology to replace humans. The problem comes because the thing that your en

The problem isn't technical at all. In fact, the problem stems from trying to use technology to replace humans. The problem comes because the thing that your entire proposal rests on, curation, isn't being done.

cornholio 8y ago
That's my point: don't try to do content curation, pass it down to the next level. A limited number of manually vetted publishers should have access to the kids sections, and that access should be a very valuable asset which they lose when publishing bad content; as opposed to a burner Youtube account anyone can setup in minutes.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  Fine, lets say Google does that. Then they're blamed for allowing a media oligopoly form, whilst ignoring small content producers. We're seeing this play out with the demonitazation of popular vid creators. Long story short, with the public, damned if you, and damned if you don't.
  - jakobegger 8y ago
    Nobody would complain if Youtube offered a curated channel with guaranteed kid safe videos. If I type "Peppa Pig", I want the official genuine Peppa Pig, not some stupid knockoff. The problem is that Youtube wants to show you an endless stream of content, and they never ever want to show you an empty search result. So they show you sketchy videos uploaded by bots with no quality control, and their stupid algorithms somehow manage to always put the fake stuff next to the real stuff. And to make it clear: Nobody is requesting that Google should block questionable videos. They just shouldn't shove them in your face like they do now.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      To make it clear: People are very much requesting that Google block questionable videos on their Kids app.
      - jakobegger 8y ago
        There is a difference between not including something in a curated channel (like the youtube kids app) and blocking it.
ryandrake 8y ago
Exactly. You see the same thing happen in every other spot on the internet where users contribute content, and only an algorithm controls what dies, what lives, and what gets rewarded. See also: the huge counterfeit goods problem on Amazon, review system gaming on Yelp, spam in almost any unmoderated online forum, etc. This isn’t going to be solved with better algorithms or machine learning. The bad actors also have computing resources. I think it can only be solved by human curation.
- flyinghamster 8y ago
  It's instructive to view Hacker News' own "new" page with "showdead" set. The torrent of spam is astounding. There seems to be absolutely nothing online that people aren't intent on ruining.
- iandanforth 8y ago
  I have to disagree, not because you're wrong, but because I am jaded. I think it will be solved by better algorithms and machine learning after it gets worse for a very long time. If there is a temporary replacement of algorithms with human curation the scale of the economic incentive to replace those workers is vast. An institution like Google or Amazon cannot look at a huge, low-skill workforce and not actively wonder how to replace them. I lived this personally as I was briefly an adwords editor. I was one of a huge cadre of BA's employed to enforce complex and messy rules about text ads. Simultaneously, embedded engineers watched us so they could better craft algorithmic replacements. Eventually they did. That experience was a non-zero factor in my transition into a technical career. Big companies will automate anything they can and being on the automation side rather than the automated seems like the better idea.
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    As automation gets better, do you think the bad actors are just going to shrug, say “well that was good while it lasted” and give up? Their automation will keep improving too. I’d argue that the spammers’ algorithms will always be better than their targets’ because their effort directly impacts their bottom line, whereas their targets’ anti spam efforts have to only catch enough to avoid turning their legit audience away.
CM30 8y ago
This times a thousand. The problems we're seeing with social media sites and trolling, spam, harassment, low quality content, fake reviews, etc is because they're operating at a scale where human moderators are too expensive to use and stuck trying to use algorithms to solve human problems. But that doesn't work. Until we have true human level AI (and honestly maybe not even then), decent curation has to be done by humans rather than machines. That's why forums tend to be less 'toxic' than Twitter or Facebook, because the moderators can view content and use their personal disgression while figuring out whether something breaks the rules and then act accordingly. It's why (somewhat surprisingly), the likes of SMW Central and MFGG have better quality control standards than Steam, the App store or other such services; because the moderators physically play through every game submitted and determine whether they're good enough to be accepted. It's why Amazon has an issue with counterfeit products nowadays, and why Google search has spam and blackhat SEO. And it's not just humans that are needed for good moderation or curation either. It's humans with knowledge/experience in the field in question, and with enough interest to go all in on their work to make the community better. Those 'moderation sweatshops' some social media services use (the ones that check for illegal content and what not by getting a bunch of low wage workers to scan through content en mass) are as flawed an idea as the algorithms; they don't know what's acceptable beyond the very minimum. But I guess that's the issue with many businesses and services and startups now. Everyone's trying to solve human problems with only code, and realising it (at least for the time being) just often doesn't work that well.

cornholio 8y ago

That's my point: don't try to do content curation, pass it down to the next level. A limited number of manually vetted publishers should have access to the kids sections, and that access should be a very valuable asset which they lose when publishing bad content; as opposed to a burner Youtube account anyone can setup in minutes.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
Fine, lets say Google does that. Then they're blamed for allowing a media oligopoly form, whilst ignoring small content producers. We're seeing this play out with the demonitazation of popular vid creators. Long story short, with the public, damned if you, and damned if you don't.
- jakobegger 8y ago
  Nobody would complain if Youtube offered a curated channel with guaranteed kid safe videos. If I type "Peppa Pig", I want the official genuine Peppa Pig, not some stupid knockoff. The problem is that Youtube wants to show you an endless stream of content, and they never ever want to show you an empty search result. So they show you sketchy videos uploaded by bots with no quality control, and their stupid algorithms somehow manage to always put the fake stuff next to the real stuff. And to make it clear: Nobody is requesting that Google should block questionable videos. They just shouldn't shove them in your face like they do now.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    To make it clear: People are very much requesting that Google block questionable videos on their Kids app.
    - jakobegger 8y ago
      There is a difference between not including something in a curated channel (like the youtube kids app) and blocking it.

ryandrake 8y ago

Exactly. You see the same thing happen in every other spot on the internet where users contribute content, and only an algorithm controls what dies, what lives, and what gets rewarded. See also: the huge counterfeit goods problem on Amazon, review system gaming on Yelp, spam in almost any unmoderated online forum, etc. This isn’t going to be solved with better algorithms or machine learning. The bad actors also have computing resources. I think it can only be solved by human curation.

flyinghamster 8y ago
It's instructive to view Hacker News' own "new" page with "showdead" set. The torrent of spam is astounding. There seems to be absolutely nothing online that people aren't intent on ruining.
iandanforth 8y ago
I have to disagree, not because you're wrong, but because I am jaded. I think it will be solved by better algorithms and machine learning after it gets worse for a very long time. If there is a temporary replacement of algorithms with human curation the scale of the economic incentive to replace those workers is vast. An institution like Google or Amazon cannot look at a huge, low-skill workforce and not actively wonder how to replace them. I lived this personally as I was briefly an adwords editor. I was one of a huge cadre of BA's employed to enforce complex and messy rules about text ads. Simultaneously, embedded engineers watched us so they could better craft algorithmic replacements. Eventually they did. That experience was a non-zero factor in my transition into a technical career. Big companies will automate anything they can and being on the automation side rather than the automated seems like the better idea.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  As automation gets better, do you think the bad actors are just going to shrug, say “well that was good while it lasted” and give up? Their automation will keep improving too. I’d argue that the spammers’ algorithms will always be better than their targets’ because their effort directly impacts their bottom line, whereas their targets’ anti spam efforts have to only catch enough to avoid turning their legit audience away.

CM30 8y ago

This times a thousand. The problems we're seeing with social media sites and trolling, spam, harassment, low quality content, fake reviews, etc is because they're operating at a scale where human moderators are too expensive to use and stuck trying to use algorithms to solve human problems. But that doesn't work. Until we have true human level AI (and honestly maybe not even then), decent curation has to be done by humans rather than machines. That's why forums tend to be less 'toxic' than Twitter or Facebook, because the moderators can view content and use their personal disgression while figuring out whether something breaks the rules and then act accordingly. It's why (somewhat surprisingly), the likes of SMW Central and MFGG have better quality control standards than Steam, the App store or other such services; because the moderators physically play through every game submitted and determine whether they're good enough to be accepted. It's why Amazon has an issue with counterfeit products nowadays, and why Google search has spam and blackhat SEO. And it's not just humans that are needed for good moderation or curation either. It's humans with knowledge/experience in the field in question, and with enough interest to go all in on their work to make the community better. Those 'moderation sweatshops' some social media services use (the ones that check for illegal content and what not by getting a bunch of low wage workers to scan through content en mass) are as flawed an idea as the algorithms; they don't know what's acceptable beyond the very minimum. But I guess that's the issue with many businesses and services and startups now. Everyone's trying to solve human problems with only code, and realising it (at least for the time being) just often doesn't work that well.