5 ms·

What 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 t

What 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 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. 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 ago
        You 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.
        account42 5y ago
        Is it only possible using algorithms or is it just more profitable using algorithms?
        root_axis 5y ago
        Both. Yet, even if it were only motivated by profit, YouTube is an ad delivery business, its only purpose is profit.
      - lmm 5y ago
        Because they're de facto not just a public space but a vital part of the public discourse. Court-like processes are the appropriate standard for decisions about the use of something that affects so many people.
        root_axis 5y ago
        > de facto not just a public space Could you explain what you mean by "public space"? > vital part of the public discourse I don't agree. In my view, YouTube is one of the lowest forms of public discourse, its fundamental purpose is to generate ad revenue and the nature of the content hosted there reflects this pernicious incentive. Yes, YouTube does have some great things on it, but it's just one tiny facet of "the public discourse". > Court-like processes are the appropriate standard for decisions about the use of something that affects so many people. Can you quantify "affects" and "so many people"? YouTube is mostly an entertainment triviality, even (especially) in the realm of politics, I don't see how videos being removed from the site is important.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >> Ideally you put them in the hands of a court of law. >Why? So that the Rekieta folks can live stream it, of course!
- etchalon 5y ago
  If "courts of law" decided what content should and should not be on YouTube, they'd be hosting hardcore porn.
phone8675309 5y ago
Just 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 ago
  I'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 ago
Why 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 ago
  What 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.

What 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 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. 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 ago
      You 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.
        account42 5y ago
        Is it only possible using algorithms or is it just more profitable using algorithms?
        root_axis 5y ago
        Both. Yet, even if it were only motivated by profit, YouTube is an ad delivery business, its only purpose is profit.
    - lmm 5y ago
      Because they're de facto not just a public space but a vital part of the public discourse. Court-like processes are the appropriate standard for decisions about the use of something that affects so many people.
      - root_axis 5y ago
        > de facto not just a public space Could you explain what you mean by "public space"? > vital part of the public discourse I don't agree. In my view, YouTube is one of the lowest forms of public discourse, its fundamental purpose is to generate ad revenue and the nature of the content hosted there reflects this pernicious incentive. Yes, YouTube does have some great things on it, but it's just one tiny facet of "the public discourse". > Court-like processes are the appropriate standard for decisions about the use of something that affects so many people. Can you quantify "affects" and "so many people"? YouTube is mostly an entertainment triviality, even (especially) in the realm of politics, I don't see how videos being removed from the site is important.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >> Ideally you put them in the hands of a court of law. >Why? So that the Rekieta folks can live stream it, of course!
etchalon 5y ago
If "courts of law" decided what content should and should not be on YouTube, they'd be hosting hardcore porn.

phone8675309 5y ago

Just 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 ago
I'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 ago

Why 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 ago
What 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.