3 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

> 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.
  - ascar 5y ago
    I mean I don't disagree with your reasoning, but the economic viability was brought up as an argument against legislation forcing them to do it. So in that context it's certainly about affordability.

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.
- ascar 5y ago
  I mean I don't disagree with your reasoning, but the economic viability was brought up as an argument against legislation forcing them to do it. So in that context it's certainly about affordability.