4 ms·

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 poi

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.