6 ms·
The point is that they shouldn't do it algorithmically. They need to have guidelines for what type of content is acceptable, and hire people to enforce them.
by jakelazaroff 7y ago
The point is that they shouldn't do it algorithmically. They need to have guidelines for what type of content is acceptable, and hire people to enforce them.
- monocasa 7y agoOr both. Have a scanner, but also have a meaningful appeals process, and you don't have a demonitized gap just because you were falsely flagged.
- topmonk 7y agoHow can you not have a demonitized gap? Advertisers aren't going to want to have they ads on content that hasn't been vetted.
- Mirioron 7y agoThen the costs of YouTube probably balloon so high that it doesn't matter for creators whether their videos are demonetized or not, because they aren't going to earn anything from them.
- Fomite 7y agoWe may be hitting the point where societal impact is great enough that people don't necessarily accept "We can't do that at scale" as an out.
- goatinaboat 7y agoIndeed. Given the vast wealth Google etc have accumulated its clear that actually, they could afford to do it, and still make good, but not astounding, profits. The rationale “we can’t make as much money as we’d like to if we followed the law” just won’t wash.
- solveit 7y ago> Given the vast wealth Google etc have accumulated its clear that actually, they could afford to do it, and still make good, but not astounding, profits. Citation very much needed.
- collyw 7y agoYou need citation to prove that Google is rich?
- icebraining 7y agoThey need a citation to prove that Google is rich enough. According to stats, they were getting 400 hours of new video every minute - and that was back in 2015, it's probably at least 600 nowadays, as more people have been getting online. How much would it cost, with all overheads, to review all that?
- ChickeNES 7y agoAlso, content reviewers for Google and Facebook have straight up developed PTSD from the things they've seen, that has to be factored in as well.
- sieabahlpark 7y agoThat's a very naive approach to understand how company valuations work. They also need to not censor so much that it's a publisher and maintain themselves as a platform legally.
- Mirioron 7y agoThe platform economics change in that case. Right now, anybody can upload content for free and it'll appear very quickly on the channel. If you increase the cost per video by mandating human oversight on videos, then YouTube will probably remove the ability for (most) people to upload videos for free. I don't think that that's preferable for society.
- philpem 7y agoMaybe the solution to that is decentralised services. To use a historical example, it's easier to moderate an IRC channel of 100 people than an IRC network of 10,000.
- crankylinuxuser 7y agoOr better yet, unmoderated. Usenet only fell apart because of the spam, and legal attacks by the RIAA and MPAA and BSA.
- philpem 7y agoThat would depend on your perspective and your own experiences, I expect. I found the moderated sci.* and comp.* groups more pleasant for asking questions and giving answers. The alt.* hierarchy had its moments, but mostly it was an exercise in tolerance. Some groups were largely self-moderating, others had such a poor SNR that there was no point putting the time in. The RIAA/MPAA/BSA raids were only really relevant if you were into pirating copyrighted material.
- manfredo 7y agoEvidenced by what? Violence continues to be at or near the lowest point since the mind 20th century. Not just in the US but globally. Economic growth is persisting despite governments uncooperative with the global economy in key countries (like the US). And the internet itself is doing a way better job of policing content today than it was in the 2000s. So why is the internet all of a sudden a problem today, despite key indicators showing that society isn't worse off?
- Nasrudith 7y agoWho decides societal impact then? Didn't we learn from Socrates that not even society can sanely decide that?