4 ms·

laowhy86 had all his video comments removed by youtube because his toddler daughter was in a couple of his videos, despite not being the focus of or even in 99%

laowhy86 had all his video comments removed by youtube because his toddler daughter was in a couple of his videos, despite not being the focus of or even in 99% of his videos, and despite the fact that he does curate comments. He received no notice of this from youtube. He found out when one of his twitter followers pointed it out.

Numberwang 8y ago
Yes it seemed like a big overreaction from Youtubes side. I enjoy his channel, so I really hope it doesn't affect the output.
- beering 8y ago
  What's worse for YouTube? That news articles continue to be written about how they're ignoring a pedophilia problem, or some channels getting caught up in the algorithm? It sucks to be negatively affected as a content creator, but YouTube is doing what everyone has been pressuring them to do.
  - eropple 8y ago
    People are pressuring YouTube to hire and train moderators to competently and soberly evaluate context and take intelligent action. Nobody is pressuring YouTube to blow channels away because one of their ML algorithms hit a probability threshold.
    - themacguffinman 8y ago
      It's simply absurd for YouTube to manually moderate comments at the scale they currently operate. If you force them to do that, it won't be profitable, and you'll end up with YouTube blowing channels away because they can't afford to host them anyway.
      - pferde 8y ago
        So, quality instead of quantity? How horrible.
      - eropple 8y ago
        Why? Why is it absurd? You are thinking at human scales, and that is understandable, but Google doesn't think at human scales and it's only "absurd" if you think that Google has the inalienable right to the smallest possible cost of goods sold, even if that means offloading their externalities onto everyone else. It is probably obvious that I do not. You shouldn't, either. At Google's scale, trained-but-unskilled workers are not expensive. They are not cheap, but they are not expensive. And Google makes a lot of money. This is a common throughline from large societally-threatening, socialize-our-externalities-but-never-our-profits companies from Facebook to Google: "doing something correctly, or even trying to, would just cost too much money, so we should continue our societal-termite ways!" Until these unwatched monsters--and that is, I stress, the default state of the corporation, it is only the threat of the society that grants them their charter taking it away that adds even a speck of decency to them--prove, prove, that they somehow just can't survive by reducing incomprehensible net revenues to merely gigantic, then I will continue to operate on the understanding that they don't want to. Which I tend to think is a much, much more realistic thing. I don't care. They fix their product or YouTube delenda est. Either is preferable to the current situation.
        sangnoir 8y ago
        > And Google makes a lot of money. They make money by not spending it when they can get the same outcome for free[1]. Also, Search and Adwords make money, YouTube is getting by[2] (relatively). Why should other divisions subsidize a loss-making YouTube? Some channels don't make enough money relative to number of comments to be financially viable (no matter how cheap the moderators are) - Google has simply outsourced this decision to individual channel owners. 1. Google user's do a lot of things for free already, e.g. Map POIs 2. My guess - they don't breakout YT's income/expenses in fincancial reports https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-sec-wants-to-know-why-google-doesnt-report-youtube-revenue-2018-02-26 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-sec-wants-to-know-why-...
- njharman 8y ago
  > big overreaction What other kind of reaction is possible when people scream "pedophile"?

Numberwang 8y ago

Yes it seemed like a big overreaction from Youtubes side. I enjoy his channel, so I really hope it doesn't affect the output.

beering 8y ago
What's worse for YouTube? That news articles continue to be written about how they're ignoring a pedophilia problem, or some channels getting caught up in the algorithm? It sucks to be negatively affected as a content creator, but YouTube is doing what everyone has been pressuring them to do.
- eropple 8y ago
  People are pressuring YouTube to hire and train moderators to competently and soberly evaluate context and take intelligent action. Nobody is pressuring YouTube to blow channels away because one of their ML algorithms hit a probability threshold.
  - themacguffinman 8y ago
    It's simply absurd for YouTube to manually moderate comments at the scale they currently operate. If you force them to do that, it won't be profitable, and you'll end up with YouTube blowing channels away because they can't afford to host them anyway.
    - pferde 8y ago
      So, quality instead of quantity? How horrible.
    - eropple 8y ago
      Why? Why is it absurd? You are thinking at human scales, and that is understandable, but Google doesn't think at human scales and it's only "absurd" if you think that Google has the inalienable right to the smallest possible cost of goods sold, even if that means offloading their externalities onto everyone else. It is probably obvious that I do not. You shouldn't, either. At Google's scale, trained-but-unskilled workers are not expensive. They are not cheap, but they are not expensive. And Google makes a lot of money. This is a common throughline from large societally-threatening, socialize-our-externalities-but-never-our-profits companies from Facebook to Google: "doing something correctly, or even trying to, would just cost too much money, so we should continue our societal-termite ways!" Until these unwatched monsters--and that is, I stress, the default state of the corporation, it is only the threat of the society that grants them their charter taking it away that adds even a speck of decency to them--prove, prove, that they somehow just can't survive by reducing incomprehensible net revenues to merely gigantic, then I will continue to operate on the understanding that they don't want to. Which I tend to think is a much, much more realistic thing. I don't care. They fix their product or YouTube delenda est. Either is preferable to the current situation.
      - sangnoir 8y ago
        > And Google makes a lot of money. They make money by not spending it when they can get the same outcome for free[1]. Also, Search and Adwords make money, YouTube is getting by[2] (relatively). Why should other divisions subsidize a loss-making YouTube? Some channels don't make enough money relative to number of comments to be financially viable (no matter how cheap the moderators are) - Google has simply outsourced this decision to individual channel owners. 1. Google user's do a lot of things for free already, e.g. Map POIs 2. My guess - they don't breakout YT's income/expenses in fincancial reports https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-sec-wants-to-know-why-google-doesnt-report-youtube-revenue-2018-02-26 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-sec-wants-to-know-why-...
njharman 8y ago
> big overreaction What other kind of reaction is possible when people scream "pedophile"?