7 ms·

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 t

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...
cm2187 5y ago
Or at least offer a process to paying customers.
judge2020 5y ago
YouTube was going to have this with YT Heroes[0] but now it's YT contributors[1], and likely has fewer moderation tools. 0: https://youtu.be/ZOw_wIog4lU https://youtu.be/ZOw_wIog4lU 1: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7124236?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7124236?hl=en
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  I think the randomly selected only once jury is an important part of that idea. If you let people self select as moderators you're going to end up with alot of people with way to much time on their hands trying to push an agenda instead of moderate.
_fat_santa 5y ago
I think you're still going to bump up against scaling issues with this solution. Youtube has something like 500hrs of new content uploaded to it every minute, and I've heard speculation that this solution couldn't possibly be solved by humans because there simply isn't enough of us on earth. In a way I sympathize with Google, Youtube, Facebook and all the other companies operating as mass scale. On the one hand their algorithms suck for moderation, but on the other hand they are the most advanced created yet and there is simply no alternative. I would imagine in the next 10-15 years the players will get moderation under control and be able to model AI to moderate fairly. But that's going to be a slow process because there isn't any alternative to AI in this case, at least how I see it.
- mdoms 5y ago
  > I think you're still going to bump up against scaling issues with this solution. Youtube has something like 500hrs of new content uploaded to it every minute, and I've heard speculation that this solution couldn't possibly be solved by humans because there simply isn't enough of us on earth. That's not the problem that needs solving. A manual review of the videos that are flagged by the AI snitch is all that's needed. Google can very easily afford this level of manual oversight.
- fauigerzigerk 5y ago
  Why not charge for human review and offer a guaranteed refund if it turns out the user wasn't at fault.
  - ohgodplsno 5y ago
    Because then you're putting a price of entry on having basic support even when you fucked up. Any user from a country where even 5 bucks is a big deal is basically locked out of it. Any user from a country where Google doesn't take payment from is locked out of it. When Google provides dogshit services, you expect people to pay for them to be reminded to fix it ?
    - fauigerzigerk 5y ago
jazzyjackson 5y ago
Different idea: union model. New users can choose to be unaffiliated, but their videos dont get boosted and they have no recourse to AI moderation. Uploaders form associations where if one uploader gets flagged, the union decides to agree with the moderation, possibly kicking the user for repeat violations, but if the union disagrees with the moderation they can threaten to disable all their videos until the decision is reversed. google will have to listen to suitabaly large uploaders unions, and its mutually beneficial: moderation gets decentralized
mdoms 5y ago
> With the scale that Google has a manual review process wouldn't scale well. Nonsense.
andromeduck 5y ago
They could also just charge for a service fee.
rasz 5y ago
Hey random user 456475485858, please help us make Youtube better by participating in a quick survey. Watch this video and tell us if it contains: [x] Child pornography [x] Violence Yep, this would work wonderfully!

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...

cm2187 5y ago

Or at least offer a process to paying customers.

judge2020 5y ago

YouTube was going to have this with YT Heroes[0] but now it's YT contributors[1], and likely has fewer moderation tools. 0: https://youtu.be/ZOw_wIog4lU https://youtu.be/ZOw_wIog4lU 1: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7124236?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7124236?hl=en

thatguy0900 5y ago
I think the randomly selected only once jury is an important part of that idea. If you let people self select as moderators you're going to end up with alot of people with way to much time on their hands trying to push an agenda instead of moderate.

_fat_santa 5y ago

I think you're still going to bump up against scaling issues with this solution. Youtube has something like 500hrs of new content uploaded to it every minute, and I've heard speculation that this solution couldn't possibly be solved by humans because there simply isn't enough of us on earth. In a way I sympathize with Google, Youtube, Facebook and all the other companies operating as mass scale. On the one hand their algorithms suck for moderation, but on the other hand they are the most advanced created yet and there is simply no alternative. I would imagine in the next 10-15 years the players will get moderation under control and be able to model AI to moderate fairly. But that's going to be a slow process because there isn't any alternative to AI in this case, at least how I see it.

mdoms 5y ago
> I think you're still going to bump up against scaling issues with this solution. Youtube has something like 500hrs of new content uploaded to it every minute, and I've heard speculation that this solution couldn't possibly be solved by humans because there simply isn't enough of us on earth. That's not the problem that needs solving. A manual review of the videos that are flagged by the AI snitch is all that's needed. Google can very easily afford this level of manual oversight.
fauigerzigerk 5y ago
Why not charge for human review and offer a guaranteed refund if it turns out the user wasn't at fault.
- ohgodplsno 5y ago
  Because then you're putting a price of entry on having basic support even when you fucked up. Any user from a country where even 5 bucks is a big deal is basically locked out of it. Any user from a country where Google doesn't take payment from is locked out of it. When Google provides dogshit services, you expect people to pay for them to be reminded to fix it ?
  - fauigerzigerk 5y ago

jazzyjackson 5y ago

Different idea: union model. New users can choose to be unaffiliated, but their videos dont get boosted and they have no recourse to AI moderation. Uploaders form associations where if one uploader gets flagged, the union decides to agree with the moderation, possibly kicking the user for repeat violations, but if the union disagrees with the moderation they can threaten to disable all their videos until the decision is reversed. google will have to listen to suitabaly large uploaders unions, and its mutually beneficial: moderation gets decentralized

mdoms 5y ago

> With the scale that Google has a manual review process wouldn't scale well. Nonsense.

andromeduck 5y ago

They could also just charge for a service fee.

rasz 5y ago

Hey random user 456475485858, please help us make Youtube better by participating in a quick survey. Watch this video and tell us if it contains: [x] Child pornography [x] Violence Yep, this would work wonderfully!