3 ms·

Sure, that's plausible, but it seems equally likely that Youtube _can_ detect videos that violate their policy and yet chooses to wait until they get some thres

Sure, that's plausible, but it seems equally likely that Youtube _can_ detect videos that violate their policy and yet chooses to wait until they get some threshold of reports/media attention because those videos are also very engaging. Having the policy allows them to react when they get pressure without impacting the bottom line.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
I wouldn't say equally likely. They both have a non-zero probability of being true but a pattern of malfeasance such as you describe would be detected pretty quickly. Imagine this or thousands of similar conversations: "Brad, have you noticed that our porn videos get removed only when they get over a certain view count?" "I had noticed that, Bob! I wonder if that observation would be interesting to the media?!" It also has minimal upside because YouTube makes more money on high view count videos by far, so removing only when a certain level of fame has hit a video cuts off the part that is economically interesting to YouTube. The tail is a loss leader. Your scenario is not very plausible to me.
- mayneack 5y ago
  "Brad, we can't deploy your conspiracy theory classifier because it would reduce the number of high value viewer engagements by 2.7%. Let's just stick with the version that depends on accumulating reports. It's not a big deal because we can always intervene if something embarrassing slips through."
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    I'm unaware of any evidence consistent with this version of how things work there. By all accounts, YouTube are unlenient with bans and blacklistings. Can you please cite a source?
    - mayneack 5y ago
      The original comment I was replying to was speculating about how they imagined youtube worked without evidence. All I did was provide an alternate explanation. I wouldn't even go so far as to suggest it's a bad thing that social networks avoid using more aggressive classifiers, just that I'm skeptical of the "we don't have the ability" explanation. By all account YouTube are arbitrary with bans and blockings. That's not the same as unlenient. The standard example of the phenomenon I'm describing is from Twitter. They successfully keep nazi content out of German twitter, but not the rest of the world. That suggests that Twitter's moderation is partially constrained by their own policies, not just technical ability. I don't think this is a far fetched understanding of how any social network works. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/twitter-germany-nazis/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/twitter-germany-nazis/

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

I wouldn't say equally likely. They both have a non-zero probability of being true but a pattern of malfeasance such as you describe would be detected pretty quickly. Imagine this or thousands of similar conversations: "Brad, have you noticed that our porn videos get removed only when they get over a certain view count?" "I had noticed that, Bob! I wonder if that observation would be interesting to the media?!" It also has minimal upside because YouTube makes more money on high view count videos by far, so removing only when a certain level of fame has hit a video cuts off the part that is economically interesting to YouTube. The tail is a loss leader. Your scenario is not very plausible to me.

mayneack 5y ago
"Brad, we can't deploy your conspiracy theory classifier because it would reduce the number of high value viewer engagements by 2.7%. Let's just stick with the version that depends on accumulating reports. It's not a big deal because we can always intervene if something embarrassing slips through."
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  I'm unaware of any evidence consistent with this version of how things work there. By all accounts, YouTube are unlenient with bans and blacklistings. Can you please cite a source?
  - mayneack 5y ago
    The original comment I was replying to was speculating about how they imagined youtube worked without evidence. All I did was provide an alternate explanation. I wouldn't even go so far as to suggest it's a bad thing that social networks avoid using more aggressive classifiers, just that I'm skeptical of the "we don't have the ability" explanation. By all account YouTube are arbitrary with bans and blockings. That's not the same as unlenient. The standard example of the phenomenon I'm describing is from Twitter. They successfully keep nazi content out of German twitter, but not the rest of the world. That suggests that Twitter's moderation is partially constrained by their own policies, not just technical ability. I don't think this is a far fetched understanding of how any social network works. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/twitter-germany-nazis/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/twitter-germany-nazis/