8 ms·
Considering the streams are back up, this seems more like a failure of automation and reporting tools than a grand conspiracy.
by etchalon 5y ago
Considering the streams are back up, this seems more like a failure of automation and reporting tools than a grand conspiracy.
- cdolan 5y agoFor how long will we excuse this kind of activity with "oops automation"?
- tauntz 5y ago.. but it's so easy and lazy to just blame "the man" or a big conspiracy.
- thesuitonym 5y agoIt's also so easy and lazy to just blame "the algorithm" than fixing your broken system.
- _-david-_ 5y agoIt is always the algorithm to blame, never the people who wrote it, audited it, etc.
- root_axis 5y agoWhat do you expect? It's not possible to write an algorithm that will not have misfires at the scale of YouTube, if it's not an intentional effort then I fail to see what the big deal is.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago> It's not possible to write an algorithm that will not have misfires at the scale of YouTube Well there is; you don't put takedowns in the hands of an algorithm. Ideally you put them in the hands of a court of law.
- root_axis 5y ago> Ideally you put them in the hands of a court of law. Why?
- AnthonyMouse 5y agoIt's an adversarial proceeding where both sides get to present their case and a takedown has to be for a violation of a law that complies with the First Amendment. Notice that this is different than what you promote. Search results are sorted by an algorithm; that's unavoidable and excessively simple algorithms like "alphabetical order" are useless. And then it's a hard problem, to which the best solution is probably multiple independent search engines with different algorithms. But removing the thing whatsoever? Court order or GTFO.
- root_axis 5y ago> It's an adversarial proceeding where both sides get to present their case and a takedown has to be for a violation of a law that complies with the First Amendment. Why should this be the standard by which YouTube can remove videos? Why shouldn't they be legally allowed to remove content via algorithms even if it creates a bad user experience?
- AnthonyMouse 5y agoYou can refuse to remove content without a court order even if you're legally allowed to remove it without one. Why should they choose to create a bad user experience by removing content via algorithms? They could just not.
- root_axis 5y ago> Why should they choose to create a bad user experience by removing content via algorithms Removing obscene, explicit, and even illegal content is only practical at YouTube's scale using algorithms, the idea that they should just abandon algorithmic removal of videos entirely is not a realistic suggestion.
- phone8675309 5y agoJust because someone hasn't thought through the logical ends of their system doesn't mean they're not responsible for those ends when they occur.
- root_axis 5y agoI'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. Of course the creators of YouTube are responsible for the behavior of YouTube. I'm just confused why a forum for programmers finds it so hard to accept that the program sometimes does things that the creators do not intend.
- rurp 5y agoWhy do algorithms get a free pass? We generally don't allow those kinds of copouts in most other areas of life. If a physical tool causes harm it's a pretty weak defense to say the effects were too complicated to understand in detail.
- root_axis 5y agoWhat do you mean? YouTube successfully serves billions of users every month, the users that suffer from the fraction of videos temporarily removed by an overfit model are a rounding error; the results of which are essentially harmless. We regularly accept much higher rates of catastrophic failure for things that are actually harmful e.g. traffic accident rates or medical error rates.
- waych 5y agoIs this the same failure in automation that is keeping Rittenhouse from being searched on Facebook?
- gnarbarian 5y agoyes just like the automation failure that removed his GoFundMe legal defense campaigns.
- uh-quan 5y agoAnd the automation failure that doxxed someone who donated to his campaign and got that person fired from their job.
- etchalon 5y agoI literally just searched Rittenhouse on Facebook.
- waych 5y agoInteresting. Perhaps they fixed the automation glitch now that it has been called out. Still broken for "kyle rittenhouse" however.
- etchalon 5y agoMore than likely whatever limiter was put in place hasn't been handled cleared yet. Facebook has a bunch of "safety" systems to stop abuse. Like, say, a bunch of people searching for a single person's name, finding people named that, and harassing them.
- thepasswordis 5y agoThe fact that there is a faceless algorithm which has seemingly been programmed specifically to remove content which fails to align with a specific political narrative, and that no human is in active control of this, is actually worse.
- LordDragonfang 5y ago>there is a faceless algorithm which has seemingly been programmed specifically to remove content which fails to align with a specific political narrative Or, without having to put on a tinfoil hat, it's been trained to remove content that discusses shooting and killing people? Or even more benignly, a lot of people reported the stream because users also have a vested interest in abusing censorship systems for political purposes, and it's not always easy to separate that kind of collective bad actorship from legitimate reports.
- betwixthewires 5y ago> Or, without having to put on a tinfoil hat... You don't have to attack the legitimacy of someone's position like this. Sure, it is possible that the reasons for it are what you're saying, but this personal dismissive attack is unwarranted, and frankly at this point tired and ineffective.
- etchalon 5y ago"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens
- ashtonkem 5y agoThat is almost certainly what happened. Google's systems are lazy and automatic, reading into it further is trying to create patterns where none exist. Chances are he got mass reported for whatever dumb thing, valid or not, and Google's system tripped without any human review. This after all is the same company and system that banned influential YouTubers for impersonating themselves, after all.
- raxxorrax 5y agoHis funding campaigns were stopped, you cannot find his name on certain social media sites. I don't care if is a grand conspiracy or a group of fools responsible for this. The result is the same and needs to be addressed without you trying to paint this as unreasonable.