3 ms·
It would be more expensive, but I don't think it would be infeasible for an organization like Mozilla. Focus just on the desktop use to start with (extracting r
by pseudo0 5y ago
It would be more expensive, but I don't think it would be infeasible for an organization like Mozilla. Focus just on the desktop use to start with (extracting recommendations from the YouTube app would likely be challenging) and pay a representative set of users to install a browser extension that records the videos they are recommended. Then go through some subset of the videos and evaluate if they are harmful or not. It would definitely be more work, but at least that would give some useful new information on this issue, rather than confirming what was previously known.
- uniqueuid 5y agoWell, I've done some of these things in other contexts. Market rate compensation for participation in such studies is ~$1 per day. You'd need at least 10'000 users to have menaningful confidence intervals. Say you're tracking for one month, then you pay 300k for the sample alone. If you have a single multi-purpose researcher doing study design, programming, logistics, analysis, outreach and all, that's perhaps 50k-100k a year (highly dependent on country and institution). Next you hire a bunch of people to do the content analysis. Either mechanical turk with a 2-3 factor overprovisioning or actually trained people who are 2-3 times as expensive. At roughly one minute per video, you'd need one hour for 20 videos, i.e. approximatelly 50 cents to 1 dollar (ballpark) per video. Say you argue that the long tail is irrelevant, and you want to code the top 100k videos (danger, arbitrary cutoffs are bad), then that's another 100k. That's half a million for something that isn't mozilla's core mission and is already being done by publicly funded researchers. Would be nice if they did it, but it sounds like a bad investment to me!