4 ms·

Youtube is in between a rock and a hard place as well as all user generated content sites. Either they automate removing content and end up removing some of th

Youtube is in between a rock and a hard place as well as all user generated content sites. Either they automate removing content and end up removing some of the good with the mountains of bad, or they do it manually which costs a fortune and is too slow. The local news is still ridiculing Facebook because they left the stream up for the NZ shooting for hours and their stated reason "No one watching the video had reported it". Well what do we want facebook to do? Hire thousands of people to watch every single livestream live? IMO we should all move to some kind of self hosting where there is no central mega corp that takes responsibility for the content. You host your own content and you stand behind it legally. As long as its legal content, you have no risk of being shut down.

curlypaul924 6y ago
> Either they automate removing content and end up removing some of the good with the mountains of bad, or they do it manually which costs a fortune and is too slow. I think this is a false dichotomy; they could automate flagging for human review instead. This would address the cost though not the speed. Content awaiting review could be disabled, or it could be disabled only if it is deemed sufficiently egregious.
- SilverRed 6y ago
  >they could automate flagging for human review instead. I'm not sure this would save them in many cases. Most of the abusive content on facebook is not easily identifiable. I don't think the current AI systems are up to the task. They may be able to identify a human and a dog are in the video but not tell the difference between petting the dog or punching it. Similarly they likely can not tell the difference between someone at a shooting range or committing a mass shooting. Just like it is too much to expect police to stop all crime before it happens, I think it is too much to expect platforms to remove violating content before it is reported.

curlypaul924 6y ago

> Either they automate removing content and end up removing some of the good with the mountains of bad, or they do it manually which costs a fortune and is too slow. I think this is a false dichotomy; they could automate flagging for human review instead. This would address the cost though not the speed. Content awaiting review could be disabled, or it could be disabled only if it is deemed sufficiently egregious.

SilverRed 6y ago
>they could automate flagging for human review instead. I'm not sure this would save them in many cases. Most of the abusive content on facebook is not easily identifiable. I don't think the current AI systems are up to the task. They may be able to identify a human and a dog are in the video but not tell the difference between petting the dog or punching it. Similarly they likely can not tell the difference between someone at a shooting range or committing a mass shooting. Just like it is too much to expect police to stop all crime before it happens, I think it is too much to expect platforms to remove violating content before it is reported.