5 ms·

It’s important to note they’re ceding a fight they never even seriously attempted to engage in where comments and content are concerned. As with all things Goog

It’s important to note they’re ceding a fight they never even seriously attempted to engage in where comments and content are concerned. As with all things Google and YT, if it can’t be badly automated, they’d rather kill it than set the precedent of doing anything useful. The short term result will be attention moving on. The long term is building up pressure that will probably result in major regulation. I wouldn’t be shocked if they’re digging a grave in the shape of “They’re too big to be responsible, so break them up.” If your company has a platform that is beyond your capacity to manage responsibily, then your platform needs to shrink, or be chopped up.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
>a fight they never even seriously attempted to engage in // Google+ started with a requirement for real names didn't it, no adopted identities. They stuck with it for quite some time. IIRC it did largely cure YouTube comments. But, it damaged engagement, so ...
- Pharmakon 8y ago
  Exactly, they want to have their cake and eat it too. Low overhead, automated everything, anonymous comments, and respectability to draw ad revenue and avoid sanctions. Those are mutually exclusive goals on a large platform, and I don’t look forward to seeing hamhanded legislation with the inevitable cronyism and political infighting “solve” the problem either. Like the big game companies and their kiddie casino business model, it will eventually be slapped down if they can’t control themselves first.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bduerst 8y ago
  Yeah, this whole "Youtube isn't even trying" is a massive survivor bias/fallacy because it ignores all the failed moderation attempts that aren't visible.
  - zanny 8y ago
    Its less that nobody at Youtube tried to solve the problem but more that it was never a business priority in the interests of the bottom line to solve this problem in a nuanced way. For Youtube, these kinds of comments threaten to alienate advertisers. Comments only have a miniscule impact on viewer retention and engagement, so if the actual business is threatened by comments you just get rid of the comment system.
    - bduerst 8y ago
      Saying it's not a "business" priority is the same as saying that Youtube isn't trying, just with more words. It's also subject to the same survivor bias because we don't know the "business" investments into community and moderation.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Killed a lot of other things too. And plenty of people will post hate speech under their own name. Even in the byline of a national newspaper.
  - NikkiA 8y ago
    What's even more amazing is that they're willing to do it in the bylines of local newspapers, where there's a non-zero chance of you running into that person in your day-to-day activities.
- icebraining 8y ago
  > IIRC it did largely cure YouTube comments. Did it? I don't remember that being true.
jay_kyburz 8y ago
"If your company has a platform that is beyond your capacity to manage responsibily, then your platform needs to shrink, or be chopped up. " This is how I feel about fake new too. It's not exactly what you said, but if your business can't afford to moderate what spews out of it, then adjust your business or shut down.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

>a fight they never even seriously attempted to engage in // Google+ started with a requirement for real names didn't it, no adopted identities. They stuck with it for quite some time. IIRC it did largely cure YouTube comments. But, it damaged engagement, so ...

Pharmakon 8y ago
Exactly, they want to have their cake and eat it too. Low overhead, automated everything, anonymous comments, and respectability to draw ad revenue and avoid sanctions. Those are mutually exclusive goals on a large platform, and I don’t look forward to seeing hamhanded legislation with the inevitable cronyism and political infighting “solve” the problem either. Like the big game companies and their kiddie casino business model, it will eventually be slapped down if they can’t control themselves first.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bduerst 8y ago
Yeah, this whole "Youtube isn't even trying" is a massive survivor bias/fallacy because it ignores all the failed moderation attempts that aren't visible.
- zanny 8y ago
  Its less that nobody at Youtube tried to solve the problem but more that it was never a business priority in the interests of the bottom line to solve this problem in a nuanced way. For Youtube, these kinds of comments threaten to alienate advertisers. Comments only have a miniscule impact on viewer retention and engagement, so if the actual business is threatened by comments you just get rid of the comment system.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    Saying it's not a "business" priority is the same as saying that Youtube isn't trying, just with more words. It's also subject to the same survivor bias because we don't know the "business" investments into community and moderation.
pjc50 8y ago
Killed a lot of other things too. And plenty of people will post hate speech under their own name. Even in the byline of a national newspaper.
- NikkiA 8y ago
  What's even more amazing is that they're willing to do it in the bylines of local newspapers, where there's a non-zero chance of you running into that person in your day-to-day activities.
icebraining 8y ago
> IIRC it did largely cure YouTube comments. Did it? I don't remember that being true.

jay_kyburz 8y ago

"If your company has a platform that is beyond your capacity to manage responsibily, then your platform needs to shrink, or be chopped up. " This is how I feel about fake new too. It's not exactly what you said, but if your business can't afford to moderate what spews out of it, then adjust your business or shut down.