3 ms·

It’s fundamentally hard to govern YouTube. The tools to analyze and remove harmful video content don’t exist. Pic one, the existence of YouTube and harmful vide

It’s fundamentally hard to govern YouTube. The tools to analyze and remove harmful video content don’t exist. Pic one, the existence of YouTube and harmful videos or no YouTube at all.

pinewurst 7y ago
I don't deny that. But to consciously serve as an advocate/mouthpiece knowing it's a evil mess, for the sake of one's Googliness (the joy of the happy, well rewarded elite family)?
- mtnGoat 7y ago
  Having an "elite" job that is very financially rewarding and the lifestyle that comes with, is what a lot of big-tech is offering in exchange for loose morals. Thats how these people justify turning a blind eye for so long. I'd venture to bet a lot of these folks wouldn't be willing to look the other way for $50k a year.
  - pinewurst 7y ago
    If it was simply that though - overt cash for compliance - I wouldn't feel so angry. It's the exuded sense of superiority - "The cash is because we're such great people" rather than an acknowledged payoff for socially negative duties.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      When people talk about this sort of thing, it's always with the tone that people ought to be paid more for doing good. But if people had to be paid more for doing good, on average, that would mean most people preferred doing bad things! Which would be bad and mean most people would be evil. Doing the right thing being costly isn't a thing that just happens to be true of our imperfect society, it's an unavoidable logical consequence of distinguishing between "right" and "profitable". Convince me I'm wrong.
  - Data_Junkie 7y ago
    Sure they would. A few days living in the real world and they would be right back to their instictual, institutionalized reinforced behavior of all that matters to them is them. Never going to change without culture "leaders" being killed, never has before. Put those fools on the streets for a few hours and they would do anything for 50k.

It’s fundamentally hard to govern YouTube. The tools to analyze and remove harmful video content don’t exist. Pic one, the existence of YouTube and harmful videos or no YouTube at all.

pinewurst 7y ago

I don't deny that. But to consciously serve as an advocate/mouthpiece knowing it's a evil mess, for the sake of one's Googliness (the joy of the happy, well rewarded elite family)?

mtnGoat 7y ago
Having an "elite" job that is very financially rewarding and the lifestyle that comes with, is what a lot of big-tech is offering in exchange for loose morals. Thats how these people justify turning a blind eye for so long. I'd venture to bet a lot of these folks wouldn't be willing to look the other way for $50k a year.
- pinewurst 7y ago
  If it was simply that though - overt cash for compliance - I wouldn't feel so angry. It's the exuded sense of superiority - "The cash is because we're such great people" rather than an acknowledged payoff for socially negative duties.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    When people talk about this sort of thing, it's always with the tone that people ought to be paid more for doing good. But if people had to be paid more for doing good, on average, that would mean most people preferred doing bad things! Which would be bad and mean most people would be evil. Doing the right thing being costly isn't a thing that just happens to be true of our imperfect society, it's an unavoidable logical consequence of distinguishing between "right" and "profitable". Convince me I'm wrong.
- Data_Junkie 7y ago
  Sure they would. A few days living in the real world and they would be right back to their instictual, institutionalized reinforced behavior of all that matters to them is them. Never going to change without culture "leaders" being killed, never has before. Put those fools on the streets for a few hours and they would do anything for 50k.