6 ms·

Google needs an appeal process. They have too much of a responsability, they can't do this to people. If they don't want to do it, the law must force them to se

Google needs an appeal process. They have too much of a responsability, they can't do this to people. If they don't want to do it, the law must force them to set one up.

35mm 5y ago
In theory in the EU there is a provision under GDPR to have the right of a human review of algorithmic decisions. However in practice big tech companies either respond saying it doesn’t apply, or that it already has been reviewed by a human - which of course there’s no way to disprove from the outside.
- gostsamo 5y ago
  This provision is for important stuff like job, rent, credit and the like. Look for proposals in the Digital Services Act, this might be more appropriate place to introduce moderation and ban standards.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  > it already has been reviewed by a human - which of course there’s no way to disprove from the outside. Youtube appeals are either a non-local phenomenon or not decided by humans.
- lwkl 5y ago
  There needs to be a cheap way for consumers to take this to a small claims court, so companies are forced to offer a proper review process.
  - number6 5y ago
    In theory you can inform the gdpr watchdogs and they can inquire further. I don't think the outcome will be different
  - Teever 5y ago
    I've been wondering about that. What happens if people coordinate across the world to take Google to small claims court for various infractions all at the same time. Every day. For months. What happens then? If they don't have enough legal representatives and they can't show up they lose by default in many jurisdictions, right?
    - saynay 5y ago
      Pretty sure it wouldn't require coordination. Something like 1/3 of the planet is their active monthly userbase for just YouTube.
    - Dayshine 5y ago
      They settle and ban you from their service. Eventually nobody who would take them to court is their customer anymore. Amazon do this. You can only enforce your consumer rights once.
  - imglorp 5y ago
    But how? It's a free service, you got what you paid for. You might have damages but they are your disappointment around counting your free eggs from the free chicken.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  The problem is often there's just no way to get the attention of a real human through the support site. It's becoming more common that "support" is just a page where you have to choose "your issue" from a prebaked FAQ list. With automated answers. And if your issue isn't frequently asked? Well good luck. The other option is a boneheaded chatbot that's so scripted it doesn't understand the real issue.
- ninth_ant 5y ago
  Likely “reviewed” by a 3rd party consultant in less than 6 seconds as images rapidly scroll past them.
throw_m239339 5y ago
> Google needs an appeal process. They have too much of a responsability, they can't do this to people. If they don't want to do it, the law must force them to set one up. They "have" one, it's mostly useless if you are small channel, akin to a fake panic button. They have that responsibility because they have a huge audience. Only laws could coerce them into having a real appeal process but then it might not be economically viable at their scale either. This is a complex issue, a significant amount of people have their livelihood tied to some google service, in subtle ways, but Google also provides these services mostly at no direct cost for them. I don't think that internet paradigm with last though.
- cube00 5y ago
  But they fixed the appeals process and learnt from last time when they were denying all of them https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1193216884197314560 https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1193216884197314560
- ascar 5y ago
  > but then it might not be economically viable at their scale either. Google has a net income of well over 20% of revenue in their last quarterly earnings, even over 30% last March. This is ridiculously profitable. So I don't buy that argument at all. And even if it's not economically viable to have customer support (or just a proper and timely process for appeals of AI decisions), then their business model probably shouldn't exist in its current form to begin with.
  - GekkePrutser 5y ago
    Viability isn't whether they can afford it, sadly. It's whether they consider the negative effects of not doing it to overwhelm the cost of doing it. In this case they won't lose much income from a small channel and people will continue to use their service so purely financially it's a sound decision. It's also a dick move to their users but big corporations don't have morals. Just shareholders. Remember both the content creators and consumers aren't their customers. We're just assets for the real customers, the advertisers. Google is the farmer and we're the cattle.
throwbacktictac 5y ago
Just an idea that pop into my head. With the scale that Google has a manual review process wouldn't scale well. I think that they could offload the evaluation to a jury of randomly selected, opt-ed in users. Where a quorum or super majority gets content unblocked.
- naoqj 5y ago
  That has worked well for digg, reddit, wikipedia... not
- jrootabega 5y ago
  I don't think unblocking would be good (if I'm putting myself in Google's shoes). But it would at least then be reviewed by a human with sense and influence.
- lwkl 5y ago
  What is their profit margin again? About 30 % right? They definitely are profitable enough to offer proper customer service and if they don't do it on their own I bet there will be a day when regulation forces them to. Some things don't scale well and guess what that is cost of business. Imagine a company suddenly removing seats from cars just to increase their profit margin. People would think they are crazy. So why are we accepting this when tech companies do it with customer service?
  - tjpnz 5y ago
    >So why are we accepting this when tech companies do it with customer service? I promise you that the man on the street doesn't consider this acceptable. That so many in tech believe it is fills me with despair. Our industry isn't alone in having scalability problems, but we do stand alone in the belief that it's then fine to ignore the customer.
    - lmz 5y ago
      Please add "non paying" before "customer" and morenpeople wouldnprobably believe it's OK. Heck, banks where you actually keep money there are cutting down on services...
charcircuit 5y ago
YouTube already has an appeal process and the author used it.
nova22033 5y ago
If they don't want to do it, the law must force them to set one up. Which law currently on the books would force them to do this? If there is such a law on the books, don't you think it would be applied to every company?
- Shared404 5y ago
  Laws are not static. I often see the "what law says that is ok" argument in response to "we should force <industry> to reform". People who say the latter are arguing for new laws most of the time.

Google needs an appeal process. They have too much of a responsability, they can't do this to people. If they don't want to do it, the law must force them to set one up.

35mm 5y ago

In theory in the EU there is a provision under GDPR to have the right of a human review of algorithmic decisions. However in practice big tech companies either respond saying it doesn’t apply, or that it already has been reviewed by a human - which of course there’s no way to disprove from the outside.

gostsamo 5y ago
This provision is for important stuff like job, rent, credit and the like. Look for proposals in the Digital Services Act, this might be more appropriate place to introduce moderation and ban standards.
formerly_proven 5y ago
> it already has been reviewed by a human - which of course there’s no way to disprove from the outside. Youtube appeals are either a non-local phenomenon or not decided by humans.
lwkl 5y ago
There needs to be a cheap way for consumers to take this to a small claims court, so companies are forced to offer a proper review process.
- number6 5y ago
  In theory you can inform the gdpr watchdogs and they can inquire further. I don't think the outcome will be different
- Teever 5y ago
  I've been wondering about that. What happens if people coordinate across the world to take Google to small claims court for various infractions all at the same time. Every day. For months. What happens then? If they don't have enough legal representatives and they can't show up they lose by default in many jurisdictions, right?
  - saynay 5y ago
    Pretty sure it wouldn't require coordination. Something like 1/3 of the planet is their active monthly userbase for just YouTube.
  - Dayshine 5y ago
    They settle and ban you from their service. Eventually nobody who would take them to court is their customer anymore. Amazon do this. You can only enforce your consumer rights once.
- imglorp 5y ago
  But how? It's a free service, you got what you paid for. You might have damages but they are your disappointment around counting your free eggs from the free chicken.
GekkePrutser 5y ago
The problem is often there's just no way to get the attention of a real human through the support site. It's becoming more common that "support" is just a page where you have to choose "your issue" from a prebaked FAQ list. With automated answers. And if your issue isn't frequently asked? Well good luck. The other option is a boneheaded chatbot that's so scripted it doesn't understand the real issue.
ninth_ant 5y ago
Likely “reviewed” by a 3rd party consultant in less than 6 seconds as images rapidly scroll past them.

throw_m239339 5y ago

> Google needs an appeal process. They have too much of a responsability, they can't do this to people. If they don't want to do it, the law must force them to set one up. They "have" one, it's mostly useless if you are small channel, akin to a fake panic button. They have that responsibility because they have a huge audience. Only laws could coerce them into having a real appeal process but then it might not be economically viable at their scale either. This is a complex issue, a significant amount of people have their livelihood tied to some google service, in subtle ways, but Google also provides these services mostly at no direct cost for them. I don't think that internet paradigm with last though.

cube00 5y ago
But they fixed the appeals process and learnt from last time when they were denying all of them https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1193216884197314560 https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1193216884197314560
ascar 5y ago
> but then it might not be economically viable at their scale either. Google has a net income of well over 20% of revenue in their last quarterly earnings, even over 30% last March. This is ridiculously profitable. So I don't buy that argument at all. And even if it's not economically viable to have customer support (or just a proper and timely process for appeals of AI decisions), then their business model probably shouldn't exist in its current form to begin with.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  Viability isn't whether they can afford it, sadly. It's whether they consider the negative effects of not doing it to overwhelm the cost of doing it. In this case they won't lose much income from a small channel and people will continue to use their service so purely financially it's a sound decision. It's also a dick move to their users but big corporations don't have morals. Just shareholders. Remember both the content creators and consumers aren't their customers. We're just assets for the real customers, the advertisers. Google is the farmer and we're the cattle.

throwbacktictac 5y ago

Just an idea that pop into my head. With the scale that Google has a manual review process wouldn't scale well. I think that they could offload the evaluation to a jury of randomly selected, opt-ed in users. Where a quorum or super majority gets content unblocked.

naoqj 5y ago
That has worked well for digg, reddit, wikipedia... not
jrootabega 5y ago
I don't think unblocking would be good (if I'm putting myself in Google's shoes). But it would at least then be reviewed by a human with sense and influence.
lwkl 5y ago
What is their profit margin again? About 30 % right? They definitely are profitable enough to offer proper customer service and if they don't do it on their own I bet there will be a day when regulation forces them to. Some things don't scale well and guess what that is cost of business. Imagine a company suddenly removing seats from cars just to increase their profit margin. People would think they are crazy. So why are we accepting this when tech companies do it with customer service?
- tjpnz 5y ago
  >So why are we accepting this when tech companies do it with customer service? I promise you that the man on the street doesn't consider this acceptable. That so many in tech believe it is fills me with despair. Our industry isn't alone in having scalability problems, but we do stand alone in the belief that it's then fine to ignore the customer.
  - lmz 5y ago
    Please add "non paying" before "customer" and morenpeople wouldnprobably believe it's OK. Heck, banks where you actually keep money there are cutting down on services...

charcircuit 5y ago

YouTube already has an appeal process and the author used it.

nova22033 5y ago

If they don't want to do it, the law must force them to set one up. Which law currently on the books would force them to do this? If there is such a law on the books, don't you think it would be applied to every company?

Shared404 5y ago
Laws are not static. I often see the "what law says that is ok" argument in response to "we should force <industry> to reform". People who say the latter are arguing for new laws most of the time.