6 ms·

You can't compare Netflix/Amazon with Youtube. The amount of content YT must deal with is multiple magnitudes larger. There is no way humans can handle that muc

by proc0 7y ago

You can't compare Netflix/Amazon with Youtube. The amount of content YT must deal with is multiple magnitudes larger. There is no way humans can handle that much content, that quickly and accurately. They really don't have a choice at that volume. Either machines learn to do it properly or there won't be any filtering at all as humans wouldn't be able to keep up.

kenhwang 7y ago
Do it by channel. Either a channel is approved for children content by a human or it isn't. Then just rereview periodically. There's much less churn in channels compared to the content.
- jedberg 7y ago
  That wouldn't be good enough. The freaks who like to game the system with scary shit would just game that system too. They wouldn't care that they burned their channel. The only way this works is to have a human review every piece of content before it goes live, like every other streaming service with a kids section does.
  - thekyle 7y ago
    Why not just whitelist channels and disallow ones with less than say 500,000 subscribers. Surely nobody with that large of a following who produces kid targeted content would burn their own channel down just for the "lolz".
- wolco 7y ago
  The fear is that unkid friendly video could get through so it would need to happen per video.
Despegar 7y ago
>You can't compare Netflix/Amazon with Youtube. Yes we absolutely can. YouTube's business model depending on user generated content is their choice. Not being able to review all the content is entirely a problem for Google to solve. Maybe they should stop optimizing for growth and put up some hurdles to who can upload content? That's for them to figure out.
- worldsayshi 7y ago
  Or just have YouTube kids be a curated subset of regular YouTube content. How hard can that be. Doesn't need to be a dynamic amount of content.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    The outrage machine would find something new to be upset about. Every week there'd be another channel coming out of the woodwork upset that they could not make the YouTube Kids cut.
    - smt88 7y ago
      Curation is messy, but that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands or, worse, think an algorithm can do it. The argument here is whether imperfect curation is better than none, and the history of television tells us that it is. We never had a TV channel that randomly showed kids pro-suicide messages.
  - datguacdoh 7y ago
    I never understood this either. Why not go to a whitelisting model for channel owners and just start with large brands like PBS that have a vested interest in their reputation. You get the benefit of new videos from those channels and then slowly work through a backlog.
    - crdrost 7y ago
      Now that ads are blocked, what is the revenue model for YTKids videos? I was about to suggest that content creators pay a nominal fee for the content to be reviewed but if creators have no way to monetize the platform, that proposal is bijective with suggesting that Google just shut down YTKids. Or are parents paying already for access to YTKids and the reviews would come out of that?
      - lilyball 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mbesto 7y ago
> They really don't have a choice at that volume. Crazy idea - maybe no one should be operating at that volume until they can figure it out?
- vineyardmike 7y ago
  (Are you listening facebook, twitter, et al)
- titzer 7y ago
  The big tech companies fundamentally do not give a crap. Traumatizing young children is a roundoff error in their calculus.
- matz1 7y ago
  No, just because some kids are harmed so they should not operate at all? Thats crazy.
  - taurath 7y ago
    Maybe you can't, as a corporation worth 100s of billions of dollars, put it out there as being "for kids", if they don't want to pay to hire a legion of people to deal with what they can't scale. They don't get to reap the benefits and redistribute the costs.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      Corporations (billions in revenue or otherwise) are not good substitutes for parenting. If you don't want your kids on a product, then supervise them. Don't ban the product for everyone who can use it responsibly.
      - taurath 7y ago
        Use it responsibly? Are you talking about people uploading creepy videos targeted to kids, or like alcohol or something? I'm certainly not one to say everything should be as safe as possible for kids, but there's a limit to what a parent can reasonably be expected to understand. If I set my kid up watching a blues clues clip, and look away for 30 seconds and he's seeing a clown with its arm torn off which autoplayed, I feel like I'm reasonably kinda entitled to go hey wtf google, your shit is broken and its harmed my kid. And then, of course, not let my kid use youtube anymore.
rtpg 7y ago
YouTube doesn’t have a god given right to the toddler market. They are the ones implying (through the existence of YT Kids and such) that they have done the filtering! If they are honest about there lack of actually effective triage then this whole controversy is of a very different valence. Stop pretending you’re triaging well if you’re not!
harrisonjackson 7y ago
You wouldn't need to moderate all the content. Just the content that has "safe for kids" stamped on it. If a creator says they are publishing a video "safe for kids" then it gets flagged for review before going live to YT kids. It could go live to general YT prior to that, which could preempt the review process if it was flagged before a moderator even got to it. I think the issue for here is the YT is trying to claim they are providing a YT kids offering, comparable and competing directly with Netflix, Amazon, PBS, etc - if they want to make this claim and have parents allow their children to view it then they need to back it up. edit: I am sure there are more checks in place and that the above idea has been considered. My main point is that they need to take responsibility for whatever claims they are making. If they can't back up the claims, then that is fine - just stop making them...
criddell 7y ago
The there's too much to moderate argument for internet companies sounds like the too big to fail argument for banks.
OrgNet 7y ago
they could do it but they don't want to because they don't have to.
celticmusic 7y ago
sure you can. Anything uploaded to YTKids goes through 1 of 2 processes. 1. it's from a trusted provider, send it on through. Add a complaint mechanism that makes it fairly easy for a trusted provider to be removed from this list (DMCA for content, if you will). 2. it sits in a queue until a human looks at it. Prioritize videos from those who were recently removed from the trusted provider list as a way to dampen the harm from abusive reports. Suddenly, it's a much smaller problem.

by proc0 7y ago

kenhwang 7y ago

Do it by channel. Either a channel is approved for children content by a human or it isn't. Then just rereview periodically. There's much less churn in channels compared to the content.

jedberg 7y ago
That wouldn't be good enough. The freaks who like to game the system with scary shit would just game that system too. They wouldn't care that they burned their channel. The only way this works is to have a human review every piece of content before it goes live, like every other streaming service with a kids section does.
- thekyle 7y ago
  Why not just whitelist channels and disallow ones with less than say 500,000 subscribers. Surely nobody with that large of a following who produces kid targeted content would burn their own channel down just for the "lolz".
wolco 7y ago
The fear is that unkid friendly video could get through so it would need to happen per video.

Despegar 7y ago

>You can't compare Netflix/Amazon with Youtube. Yes we absolutely can. YouTube's business model depending on user generated content is their choice. Not being able to review all the content is entirely a problem for Google to solve. Maybe they should stop optimizing for growth and put up some hurdles to who can upload content? That's for them to figure out.

worldsayshi 7y ago
Or just have YouTube kids be a curated subset of regular YouTube content. How hard can that be. Doesn't need to be a dynamic amount of content.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  The outrage machine would find something new to be upset about. Every week there'd be another channel coming out of the woodwork upset that they could not make the YouTube Kids cut.
  - smt88 7y ago
    Curation is messy, but that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands or, worse, think an algorithm can do it. The argument here is whether imperfect curation is better than none, and the history of television tells us that it is. We never had a TV channel that randomly showed kids pro-suicide messages.
- datguacdoh 7y ago
  I never understood this either. Why not go to a whitelisting model for channel owners and just start with large brands like PBS that have a vested interest in their reputation. You get the benefit of new videos from those channels and then slowly work through a backlog.
  - crdrost 7y ago
    Now that ads are blocked, what is the revenue model for YTKids videos? I was about to suggest that content creators pay a nominal fee for the content to be reviewed but if creators have no way to monetize the platform, that proposal is bijective with suggesting that Google just shut down YTKids. Or are parents paying already for access to YTKids and the reviews would come out of that?
    - lilyball 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mbesto 7y ago

> They really don't have a choice at that volume. Crazy idea - maybe no one should be operating at that volume until they can figure it out?

vineyardmike 7y ago
(Are you listening facebook, twitter, et al)
titzer 7y ago
The big tech companies fundamentally do not give a crap. Traumatizing young children is a roundoff error in their calculus.
matz1 7y ago
No, just because some kids are harmed so they should not operate at all? Thats crazy.
- taurath 7y ago
  Maybe you can't, as a corporation worth 100s of billions of dollars, put it out there as being "for kids", if they don't want to pay to hire a legion of people to deal with what they can't scale. They don't get to reap the benefits and redistribute the costs.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Corporations (billions in revenue or otherwise) are not good substitutes for parenting. If you don't want your kids on a product, then supervise them. Don't ban the product for everyone who can use it responsibly.
    - taurath 7y ago
      Use it responsibly? Are you talking about people uploading creepy videos targeted to kids, or like alcohol or something? I'm certainly not one to say everything should be as safe as possible for kids, but there's a limit to what a parent can reasonably be expected to understand. If I set my kid up watching a blues clues clip, and look away for 30 seconds and he's seeing a clown with its arm torn off which autoplayed, I feel like I'm reasonably kinda entitled to go hey wtf google, your shit is broken and its harmed my kid. And then, of course, not let my kid use youtube anymore.

rtpg 7y ago

YouTube doesn’t have a god given right to the toddler market. They are the ones implying (through the existence of YT Kids and such) that they have done the filtering! If they are honest about there lack of actually effective triage then this whole controversy is of a very different valence. Stop pretending you’re triaging well if you’re not!

harrisonjackson 7y ago

You wouldn't need to moderate all the content. Just the content that has "safe for kids" stamped on it. If a creator says they are publishing a video "safe for kids" then it gets flagged for review before going live to YT kids. It could go live to general YT prior to that, which could preempt the review process if it was flagged before a moderator even got to it. I think the issue for here is the YT is trying to claim they are providing a YT kids offering, comparable and competing directly with Netflix, Amazon, PBS, etc - if they want to make this claim and have parents allow their children to view it then they need to back it up. edit: I am sure there are more checks in place and that the above idea has been considered. My main point is that they need to take responsibility for whatever claims they are making. If they can't back up the claims, then that is fine - just stop making them...

criddell 7y ago

The there's too much to moderate argument for internet companies sounds like the too big to fail argument for banks.

OrgNet 7y ago

they could do it but they don't want to because they don't have to.

celticmusic 7y ago

sure you can. Anything uploaded to YTKids goes through 1 of 2 processes. 1. it's from a trusted provider, send it on through. Add a complaint mechanism that makes it fairly easy for a trusted provider to be removed from this list (DMCA for content, if you will). 2. it sits in a queue until a human looks at it. Prioritize videos from those who were recently removed from the trusted provider list as a way to dampen the harm from abusive reports. Suddenly, it's a much smaller problem.