4 ms·

> Asking people to pay for a human reviewer is a recipe for bad PR. Inevitably, some content creator is going to pay $10 and disagree with a ruling even if it's

> Asking people to pay for a human reviewer is a recipe for bad PR. Inevitably, some content creator is going to pay $10 and disagree with a ruling even if it's justified. I don't really see how this is any different now. Google is already generating bad PR by not having an appeal process for these issues and plenty of people are already complaining that it's all a scam. If a nominal fee gets you a written report that details exactly how you offended YT's policies and creates a possible scenario which you're given the opportunity to course-correct perhaps, then it's a win. What you're arguing would happen is already happening.

Faark 6y ago
> I don't really see how this is any different now. Right now, blocking a video will lead to Google being unable to earn money from it. Their incentives are aligned with those of the video creator. > What you're arguing would happen is already happening No, right now you are not pressured into giving Google money to review their automated decisions. With the suggested system implemented, you might fork over $10 individually for each of your 452 videos and get humans picking mostly the same useless text block in response, not really helping you to understand their decision. You will feel kind of like now, except you notice that YT actually made more money by banning your videos and start to wonder if that is by design... Courts are great, but have to be independent. Even arbitration can be skewed in favor of bigger companies, since getting their recurring business is in the arbitrators interest. I'd still be in favor of setting up something like that for lower level decisions, but understand this can only happen if Google finds a way to stay out of the line of fire. And still keeps a way for them to overrule those third party decisions...
- zo1 6y ago
  > "Right now, blocking a video will lead to Google being unable to earn money from it. Their incentives are aligned with those of the video creator." I would say that's only true if the volume of video content was a bottleneck for their advertisers. They have more than enough content.

Faark 6y ago

> I don't really see how this is any different now. Right now, blocking a video will lead to Google being unable to earn money from it. Their incentives are aligned with those of the video creator. > What you're arguing would happen is already happening No, right now you are not pressured into giving Google money to review their automated decisions. With the suggested system implemented, you might fork over $10 individually for each of your 452 videos and get humans picking mostly the same useless text block in response, not really helping you to understand their decision. You will feel kind of like now, except you notice that YT actually made more money by banning your videos and start to wonder if that is by design... Courts are great, but have to be independent. Even arbitration can be skewed in favor of bigger companies, since getting their recurring business is in the arbitrators interest. I'd still be in favor of setting up something like that for lower level decisions, but understand this can only happen if Google finds a way to stay out of the line of fire. And still keeps a way for them to overrule those third party decisions...

zo1 6y ago
> "Right now, blocking a video will lead to Google being unable to earn money from it. Their incentives are aligned with those of the video creator." I would say that's only true if the volume of video content was a bottleneck for their advertisers. They have more than enough content.