3 ms·
Why 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 t
by EvanAnderson 5y ago
Why 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]