3 ms·
The alternative is to responsibly scale your service. If your platform is so big that it can only be moderated by algorithms, and the algorithms don't work, the
by burkaman 6y ago
The alternative is to responsibly scale your service. If your platform is so big that it can only be moderated by algorithms, and the algorithms don't work, then it's too big. Scale down until, at the very least, you can hire enough humans to review complaints when the algorithm does something wrong. Even better would be to have a human review every flagged violation to confirm it.
Obviously, hiring humans is expensive, and nobody is forcing them to do it, but that doesn't make it an unreasonable alternative. I consider it unreasonable to design an unethical system with the sole excuse that it makes more money that way.
- ajross 6y agoSo... which providers have responsibly scaled, in your opinion? All we have are tiny hosts (mostly porn) running by the seat of their pants and occasionally disappearing in a conflagration of lawsuits, and big folks like TikTok and Google and Facebook with draconian preemptive enforcement of various forms. I think that argues strongly that the service you want to see is "unreasonable" given the regulation regime we have. You can't put this on the hosts, you'll just be disappointed. Call your representative.
- nine_k 6y agoTo leave a ton of money on the table, and let the competition eat that space, because 0.1% of DMCA requests would be served with an overreaction? Sorry, this is not going to make business sense. If you want a free video publishing platform that does user outreach for you, you got to pay a price; the false positives is a part of the price, alas.
- gbear605 6y agoThat’s why we need a regulation change to make it so that you can’t outcompete by being unethical.
- nine_k 6y agoI don't think it's viable, but I welcome any attempts to actually imagine how such regulation might work, what would it consist of.
- gbear605 6y agoI definitely don’t have a general case solution. A solution for this case would be something like “a provider of video hosting services is not allowed to take down videos automatically without having a human review each request.”
- salawat 6y agoEasy. Put the burden of legal fees and risk of censure on a DMCA mill for false positives. This means if a host takes down content to maintain their safe harbor status, and the person can prove the copyright claim was false or frivolous, you get a cause of action to counter-sue the original claimant. Moonlight Sonata is in the public domain. The teacher's performance != anyone elses. Therefore, false, therefore it should have reprecussions for the signing attorney. If it was pre-emptive by Google without a DMCA request from an external entity, that's a different issue. People don't get it. Perjury actually means something. When you have the blade of perjury over head, it is absolutely the case that as a human being, if you have doubt, you should be saying it, or you're misrepresenting the truth of the matter. The level of perjury inherent to generating these claims via automated process is absurd. It is absolutely reasonable that when you have a group going around and using the legal system as a cudgel, the proper response is to return the favor. This process should not scale at all if people would punch back. Perjury should be trivial to prove when no one even looked at the content in qustion aside from an analysis suite. Regardless; there is always the self-hosted option.
- burkaman 6y agoI agree it doesn't make business sense, but it does make moral sense. And yes, this hypothetical service probably wouldn't be free.
- polypodiopsi 6y agowell what kind of a monstrosity is this buisness sense then when it is strcturally incompatible with any moral whatsoever (as seems to be more or less the consensus of the first couple comments here)