5 ms·
It could be remunerated. Like: pay 100$ to have a human look at your case. You can appeal (and pay) up to 3 times. This would partially solve the scalability pr
by giansegato 5y ago
It could be remunerated. Like: pay 100$ to have a human look at your case. You can appeal (and pay) up to 3 times. This would partially solve the scalability problem + provide partial disincentives for scammers and spammers.
I would happily pay 100$ to recover my lost Google account.
Of course this would in turn create the bad incentive of having Google not create good models. Ideally the law would require to cap prices somehow.
Hard problem for sure.
- EvanAnderson 5y agoWhy is it my problem that a fair moderation process must be cost-effective for Google, et. al.? Edit: Google's profit margins aren't my problem. If they want to be such a big, all-encompassing force in the "digital lives" of individuals they need to be held to account with fair policies for dealing with Customers. If that creates an untenable business for them they can either innovate in a manner that results in a fair deal for users and lower expense to themselves or they can suck it up and take the hit on their margin. I don't use Google's various services beyond search, personally, but it's clear that some regulation is needed. Non-technical individuals don't understand the ramifications of relying so heavily on a platform that can be pulled out from under them with no notice and no recourse. Heck, even technical people don't seem to grasp it.
- mst 5y agoIf you legislate a non-cost-effective model you're making it substantially harder for possible future competitors. If we're assuming that "youtube as a permanent monopoly" is inevitable then, sure, fair enough, but I think if you're making that assumption it's worth making it explicitly.
- ziml77 5y agoBecause the process requires people and people cost money. And without attaching a cost to it, there would be far more requests for manual review coming in than any team Google hires could handle.
- pixl97 5y ago"There are too many safety considerations for us to effectively mitigate, it would be too expensive, so we should be allowed to ignore safety altogether" --average 19th century industrialists
- ziml77 5y agoThe context here is a proposal on how to make an appeals process viable instead just saying it's impossible.
- colinmhayes 5y agoGoogle can easily afford to hire a hundred thousand moderators. No number of requests is too many.
- JohnWhigham 5y agoBecause they're a business, and that's how businesses are run?
- junon 5y agoSo ignoring your customers after they've paid you money is something we should just throw into the bin of "that's just business, folks"?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- JohnWhigham 5y agoAs cliche as it sounds, YouTube creators are not the customer, the advertisers are.
- junon 5y agoIf you accept money from people (such as the OP, who is a Youtube Music subscriber, a paid service), they are 100% your customer.
- AshleyGrant 5y agoI've been paying for YouTube Premium for years. I pay for YouTube TV. I pay for Google Photos. I pay for Google Apps for Business. In all, I pay Google north of $1,000 every year. Whether Google likes it or not, I AM their customer.
- golemotron 5y agoIf you don't like them, it's time to look for a comparable competitor. If there aren't any then this is an object lesson on why there are pending anti-trust suits.
- junon 5y ago> If there aren't any then this is an object lesson on why there are pending anti-trust suits I don't think anyone here is arguing with that - it's a pretty widely accepted fact that Youtube has a hegemony (see: near-monopoly) in the space.
- jtbayly 5y agoBecause otherwise in the worst case Youtube can't remain free, which is arguably a good thing.
- ipaddr 5y agoHow is a paid youtube a good thing? What do you win? Less tracking no.. If you want a paid video provider many exist.
- EvanAnderson 5y agoI don't take it as a foregone conclusion that centralized free video hosting services are a good thing.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throwaway82931 5y agoThat's one option. Another would be that you need to pay for your service on a monthly basis. Some way that for a user to have faith in the appeals process and purchase peace of mind. Just knowing that a backstop is there would help a great deal.
- steve_g 5y agoHe says he's a subscriber to YouTube music. So he is paying.
- dorfsmay 5y agoOP mentioned that they are a paid YouTube member, so they do pay monthly for the service.
- throwaway82931 5y agoYes, you're right. I guess I couldn't let go of the idea that an an appeals process should be scalable for paying customers. I still believe that.
- JohnKacz 5y agoI'd add if you win the appeal you get your money back. That solves a few more of the problems I think.
- alpaca128 5y agoAll that does is create a "get free $100" button for Google.
- kortex 5y agoThat's a good idea but I can also see it backfiring. "Oops your account got locked by our algo, better cough up some dough so we can take a look at it..."
- hvis 5y agoWithout any solid guarantees (e.g. laws), you're just out $300 and back where you started.
- politician 5y agoYou already pay taxes for access to the courts.
- grammarnazzzi 5y agoThis creates a system that encourages bribery. Historically, such systems are legislated against and are often made illegal. Example: Suppose you are a cashier working in retail. If at the end of your shift your drawer is short for whatever reason, you cannot make up the difference out-of-pocket. Your managager would be commiting a crime by accepting your money.