4 ms·

If their business model is not viable without human moderation, then perhaps it shouldn't exist. Surrendering control to "algorithms" sufficiently deeply is in

If their business model is not viable without human moderation, then perhaps it shouldn't exist. Surrendering control to "algorithms" sufficiently deeply is indistinguishable from Kafka's The Trial.

chongli 6y ago
Yeah I more-or-less made this point in my other reply to this thread. I yearn for the web of my childhood (mid 90’s) when web pages were small and highly personal. People formed communities via web rings. Search was very basic but largely unnecessary because the web was so small.
- selfhoster11 6y ago
  The Indie Web and Small Web movements (I count them as distinct) have done a good job of sparking the conversation so far, plus I guess Mastodon/ActivityPub helped to some extent. I think we'll see a mini-revival of the kind of content you're looking for.
anchpop 6y ago
Why shouldn’t it? Youtube has hundreds of millions of users and most of them don’t care the slightest bit about human moderation. If you only want to use platforms that have extensive human moderation systems, they exist (HN is one, I believe dang reads every comment).
- selfhoster11 6y ago
  Human-less moderation is regularly wrecking the livelihoods of many Youtube streamers, who provide valuable (often irreplacable) educational and entertainment videos to the community. Getting banned, or getting innocent videos demonetized/removed by "the algorithm" is very common. This, if nothing else, should be a motivation to provide some level of human arbitration/appeals court. I'm sure that a good argument can be made that lack of human moderation makes Youtube an unwitting vector for videos that erode political and scientific discourse by spreading harmful nonsense, but I'm sure someone else already has written about it and I don't have the energy nor will to retread that path.

4 ms·

If their business model is not viable without human moderation, then perhaps it shouldn't exist. Surrendering control to "algorithms" sufficiently deeply is in

by selfhoster11 6y ago

If their business model is not viable without human moderation, then perhaps it shouldn't exist. Surrendering control to "algorithms" sufficiently deeply is indistinguishable from Kafka's The Trial.

chongli 6y ago
Yeah I more-or-less made this point in my other reply to this thread. I yearn for the web of my childhood (mid 90’s) when web pages were small and highly personal. People formed communities via web rings. Search was very basic but largely unnecessary because the web was so small.
- selfhoster11 6y ago
  The Indie Web and Small Web movements (I count them as distinct) have done a good job of sparking the conversation so far, plus I guess Mastodon/ActivityPub helped to some extent. I think we'll see a mini-revival of the kind of content you're looking for.
anchpop 6y ago
Why shouldn’t it? Youtube has hundreds of millions of users and most of them don’t care the slightest bit about human moderation. If you only want to use platforms that have extensive human moderation systems, they exist (HN is one, I believe dang reads every comment).
- selfhoster11 6y ago
  Human-less moderation is regularly wrecking the livelihoods of many Youtube streamers, who provide valuable (often irreplacable) educational and entertainment videos to the community. Getting banned, or getting innocent videos demonetized/removed by "the algorithm" is very common. This, if nothing else, should be a motivation to provide some level of human arbitration/appeals court. I'm sure that a good argument can be made that lack of human moderation makes Youtube an unwitting vector for videos that erode political and scientific discourse by spreading harmful nonsense, but I'm sure someone else already has written about it and I don't have the energy nor will to retread that path.