3 ms·

One of the obvious solutions for this is to charge hosting fees, something like users paying $2 per video upload or so. I think the video misses one basic poin

One of the obvious solutions for this is to charge hosting fees, something like users paying $2 per video upload or so. I think the video misses one basic point that so far youtube tries to fight fakes with technology instead of just limiting the number of videos uploaded or letting human moderators view the videos -- which would undercut their market dominance. It is a lot easier to say, oh hey, we've got this technology and people are bad at their biases, instead for example, we're subsidizing this venture to gain market dominance so everyone is able to upload whatever on youtube, but with even this subsidy we are unable to do appropriate content moderation. Foums and mail lists 30 years ago had that feature.

luckylion 8y ago
> One of the obvious solutions for this is to charge hosting fees, something like users paying $2 per video upload or so. That sounds like solving shoplifting by making customers pay an entrance fee. The majority of youtube uploaders are not the same 50 celebrities that rule the trending page and make thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars per upload. I'm amazed that people who's uploads regularly stay below 10 do upload at all, I'd be even more amazed if they started to pay serious money just to upload their daily morning chat. Personally, I tend to care more for what happens beyond the carefully selected trending page. The trending page summons my inner Kaczynski, the rest calms him down. I'd hate to see those people stop.
- prolepunk 8y ago
  I understand your criticism of my argument, that in this case only what is popular would be available but not what is niche and interesting. I still make a point that there should be some barriers of entry with humans (moderators?) as gatekeeprers to prevent the spread of this this kind of misinformation, and that would cost more money than what is happening now, it is up to youtube how they choose to recover that cost. Trying to do some clever AI on videos after the videos are uploaded is trying trying to close the barn doors after the horses are gone.
  - luckylion 8y ago
    > I understand your criticism of my argument, that in this case only what is popular would be available but not what is niche and interesting. That too, but my point was mostly that barriers would hinder the business. Even if people could afford to pay, they don't want to, and there will be a place next door where they don't have to. The problem will be solved insofar that the users migrate away, and take the problems with them - and the ad revenue ;) > and that would cost more money than what is happening now, it is up to youtube how they choose to recover that cost. Youtube _makes_ money off of this sort of manipulation, they have literally no interest in stopping it. They just want the PR problem to go away.
dredmorbius 8y ago
Likely far below $2/video, and probably with a free-service rate tier (several vids/mo, say). Though I see other areas.

luckylion 8y ago

> One of the obvious solutions for this is to charge hosting fees, something like users paying $2 per video upload or so. That sounds like solving shoplifting by making customers pay an entrance fee. The majority of youtube uploaders are not the same 50 celebrities that rule the trending page and make thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars per upload. I'm amazed that people who's uploads regularly stay below 10 do upload at all, I'd be even more amazed if they started to pay serious money just to upload their daily morning chat. Personally, I tend to care more for what happens beyond the carefully selected trending page. The trending page summons my inner Kaczynski, the rest calms him down. I'd hate to see those people stop.

prolepunk 8y ago
I understand your criticism of my argument, that in this case only what is popular would be available but not what is niche and interesting. I still make a point that there should be some barriers of entry with humans (moderators?) as gatekeeprers to prevent the spread of this this kind of misinformation, and that would cost more money than what is happening now, it is up to youtube how they choose to recover that cost. Trying to do some clever AI on videos after the videos are uploaded is trying trying to close the barn doors after the horses are gone.
- luckylion 8y ago
  > I understand your criticism of my argument, that in this case only what is popular would be available but not what is niche and interesting. That too, but my point was mostly that barriers would hinder the business. Even if people could afford to pay, they don't want to, and there will be a place next door where they don't have to. The problem will be solved insofar that the users migrate away, and take the problems with them - and the ad revenue ;) > and that would cost more money than what is happening now, it is up to youtube how they choose to recover that cost. Youtube _makes_ money off of this sort of manipulation, they have literally no interest in stopping it. They just want the PR problem to go away.

dredmorbius 8y ago

Likely far below $2/video, and probably with a free-service rate tier (several vids/mo, say). Though I see other areas.