> You can't remove all the bad videos any more than you can remove all the cholera from the river. Good, we agree. YouTube cannot win here. > Do you know how

> You can't remove all the bad videos any more than you can remove all the cholera from the river. Good, we agree. YouTube cannot win here. > Do you know how we protect populations from cholera? Yes. It's a fundamentally different problem, and the analogy is deeply flawed. Objectionable YouTube videos are currated and concentrated by the very population you're trying to protect. They're also created and circulated by thinking humans who are actively trying to evade the censors and get their videos to the population. The minimum number of videos needed to achieve significant damage in a vulnerable person is shockingly low (more than one, but frequently less than five). Take these points together and you'll realize that unlike biological examples it is infact necessary to virtually, if not entirely, eliminate objectionable videos to avoid their negative consequences. And now we're back to my original point; this is unattainable, even though it seems like it would be. Because of the base. rate. fallacy. Source: I and many of my colleagues have researched and attacked almost this exact problem.