5 ms·

I don't know if YouTube's problems are so bad that the argument applies in this case, but in general, "We can't comply with this regulation, it would be too dif

I don't know if YouTube's problems are so bad that the argument applies in this case, but in general, "We can't comply with this regulation, it would be too difficult at our scale" is not considered a valid defense. Just as banks shouldn't be allowed to get so large that they can't fail without wreaking havoc on the economy, if algorithmic recommendation and moderation can't work, then maybe social networks shouldn't be allowed to get so large that human moderation is not possible.

aaomidi 7y ago
Agree with you. If you can't do your job then maybe you'll have to be shut down.
- andromeduck 7y ago
  Since when did it become YouTube's responsibility to police speech?!
  - tomgp 7y ago
    When they started making editorial decisions about which videos to promote and to whom -albeit via an automated process.
  - yoz-y 7y ago
    Disclaimer: I work for YouTube, my personal view on the situation is this: Bear in mind that YouTube does not operate only in the US with unhinged free speech laws. Many countries have stricter laws and YouTube definitely needs to comply with them. Other than that, adpocalypse happened because of bad videos being surfaced by the algorithm so another responsibility is to the creators. (And shareholders) There is nothing to be gained by having crap in your backyard.
  - aaomidi 7y ago
    It did when people started demanding it. A company doesn't exist in a vacuum.
skybrian 7y ago
The queue for getting your video posted on YouTube would grow infinitely. (Or, more realistically, people would give up and not bother once it takes years.) But I guess they could charge money to get to the head of the line?
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  The queue for having your video uploaded and public does not at all have to be the same queue for getting your video included in others' recommendations.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    I can just see the outrage now: "YouTube running a pay-to-play scheme for exposure. Anyone can upload their video, but only the rich can get an audience!" Come to think of it, this is basically the complaint against AdWords and the gradual takeover of the search result page by paid results.
    - shearskill 7y ago
      This is exactly what happens. Prager U and Ben Shapiro advertise heavily on content adjacent to them (gaming) and their views go up, up they go in the algorithm.
- PretzelFisch 7y ago
  That's not true you can upload a video and not allow it to be recommended until some human review was done. Most youtube channels don't need the recommendation engine.
  - LocalPCGuy 7y ago
    That just isn't feasible. Videos would literally take years to get into the recommended status - another comment pointed out there are 500 new videos uploaded per SECOND.
restingrobot 7y ago
That is an apples to oranges comparison, Youtube is a platform not an institution. It is open to all videos, provided they meet certain agreed upon guidelines, and should not be responsible for censoring content based on individual opinions. I don't think that the recommendation is broken at all, in fact it works astonishingly well for the vast majority of people. The fact that there are a few bad actors is also present in the banking industry, (Wells Fargo for instance), to use your own bad comparison.
- munk-a 7y ago
  YouTube is asserting editorial and publishing rights when it promotes certain videos, if it were a pure video hosting site (providing a link to uploaded videos for people to do with as they please) then I'd agree they were just a platform, but a newspaper isn't a platform and neither is YouTube.
  - restingrobot 7y ago
    Youtube is asserting on behalf of people who own the publishing rights and not on behalf of themselves. This is an important distinction. Youtube is not the same as a Newspaper in any way shape or form, I don't really understand your comparison.
nradov 7y ago
YouTube needs no defense in this case because video recommendations are protected free speech. In the US at least it would be impossible to outlaw video recommendations in a way that would pass Constitutional review.
peteretep 7y ago
> but in general, "We can't comply with this regulation, it would be too difficult at our scale" is not considered a valid defense This is a great point that I was going to phrase slightly differently: if YouTube is too large to be able to prevent harm, YouTube needs to be regulated. YouTube get the benefit of being so large, so they should also get the cost.

aaomidi 7y ago

Agree with you. If you can't do your job then maybe you'll have to be shut down.

andromeduck 7y ago
Since when did it become YouTube's responsibility to police speech?!
- tomgp 7y ago
  When they started making editorial decisions about which videos to promote and to whom -albeit via an automated process.
- yoz-y 7y ago
  Disclaimer: I work for YouTube, my personal view on the situation is this: Bear in mind that YouTube does not operate only in the US with unhinged free speech laws. Many countries have stricter laws and YouTube definitely needs to comply with them. Other than that, adpocalypse happened because of bad videos being surfaced by the algorithm so another responsibility is to the creators. (And shareholders) There is nothing to be gained by having crap in your backyard.
- aaomidi 7y ago
  It did when people started demanding it. A company doesn't exist in a vacuum.

skybrian 7y ago

The queue for getting your video posted on YouTube would grow infinitely. (Or, more realistically, people would give up and not bother once it takes years.) But I guess they could charge money to get to the head of the line?

ilikehurdles 7y ago
The queue for having your video uploaded and public does not at all have to be the same queue for getting your video included in others' recommendations.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  I can just see the outrage now: "YouTube running a pay-to-play scheme for exposure. Anyone can upload their video, but only the rich can get an audience!" Come to think of it, this is basically the complaint against AdWords and the gradual takeover of the search result page by paid results.
  - shearskill 7y ago
    This is exactly what happens. Prager U and Ben Shapiro advertise heavily on content adjacent to them (gaming) and their views go up, up they go in the algorithm.
PretzelFisch 7y ago
That's not true you can upload a video and not allow it to be recommended until some human review was done. Most youtube channels don't need the recommendation engine.
- LocalPCGuy 7y ago
  That just isn't feasible. Videos would literally take years to get into the recommended status - another comment pointed out there are 500 new videos uploaded per SECOND.

restingrobot 7y ago

That is an apples to oranges comparison, Youtube is a platform not an institution. It is open to all videos, provided they meet certain agreed upon guidelines, and should not be responsible for censoring content based on individual opinions. I don't think that the recommendation is broken at all, in fact it works astonishingly well for the vast majority of people. The fact that there are a few bad actors is also present in the banking industry, (Wells Fargo for instance), to use your own bad comparison.

munk-a 7y ago
YouTube is asserting editorial and publishing rights when it promotes certain videos, if it were a pure video hosting site (providing a link to uploaded videos for people to do with as they please) then I'd agree they were just a platform, but a newspaper isn't a platform and neither is YouTube.
- restingrobot 7y ago
  Youtube is asserting on behalf of people who own the publishing rights and not on behalf of themselves. This is an important distinction. Youtube is not the same as a Newspaper in any way shape or form, I don't really understand your comparison.

nradov 7y ago

YouTube needs no defense in this case because video recommendations are protected free speech. In the US at least it would be impossible to outlaw video recommendations in a way that would pass Constitutional review.

peteretep 7y ago

> but in general, "We can't comply with this regulation, it would be too difficult at our scale" is not considered a valid defense This is a great point that I was going to phrase slightly differently: if YouTube is too large to be able to prevent harm, YouTube needs to be regulated. YouTube get the benefit of being so large, so they should also get the cost.