4 ms·
this seems like what should be a one week data science project at YouTube. kind of embarrassing
by hackernewds 5y ago
this seems like what should be a one week data science project at YouTube. kind of embarrassing
- kyrra 5y agoGoogler, opinions are my own. My guess is that YouTube could easily build the exact same tool. The problem is when you roll it out across your entire site, the spammers figure out the holes in it and start abusing it. I'm guessing the same thing would happen with this tool. If some large percentage of channels started using it, spammers would find the holes in it.
- dhzhzjsbevs 5y agoBetween Gmail, Search and AdWords I'm sure you numbskulls could come up with something to deal with a bit of spam.
- kyruzic 5y agoSir he is a Googler show some respect. Imagine actually referring to yourself as a Googler.
- throwmeariver1 5y agoOK, Metamate.
- gameswithgabe 5y agoI don't find this argument very convincing. The same argument could be made about security vulnerabilities, but I'm willing to bet (and hoping that this is the case) that Google will invest millions of dollars and man hours per year on security patches and secure systems. Sure, hackers will always find loop holes. But when that happens we flag that version as vulnerable and release a patch to fix the vulnerability. This is the exact same technique Google could apply to the YouTube spam. They just don't want to spend the money or time to do it.
- TheDong 5y agoThere is a difference between the cat-and-mouse game of spam fighting and between fixing vulnerabilities. Typically, when you fix a vulnerability, things are strictly better. Attackers can no longer do X bad action, but all legitimate users can still do everything they wanted. Spam fighting is different. If you make your spam classifier broader and broader, it will have more and more false positives as well, and legitimate comments will get deleted too. Without AGI, or at least very good language parsing, it really will be a case of tuning between "more false positives, less spam" and "fewer false positives, more spam". There's also vastly more spam than there are security vulnerabilities since there are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people intently creating spam for profit, while bugs are mostly accidental, and exploitable ones relatively rare.
- nyanpasu64 5y agoMeanwhile Google deletes on-topic comments with links after 5 minutes, but lets the spambots through. Actually detecting spam can't be any worse than not doing so. If you don't want to detect spambots this way, why not send possibly-spammy comments to the channel owner's moderation queue instead of memory-holing them?
- BlueTemplar 5y agoIt's even worse than that : I had some comments deleted but others shadowbanned (!), merely from using timestamp links to the same video and/or posting multiple comments and/or writing long comments ! (And I first noticed it about a year ago.) P.S.: Even the deleted comments are deleted silently.
- kingcharles 5y agoRight. They already have a system monitoring for spam comments. 99% of the time I make a valid, useful comment on a YouTube video it gets marked as spam and never shows up. They basically need to do the exact opposite of whatever they are currently doing.
- Lamad123 5y agoso why does google tries to fight spam on gmail but thinks it's a lost cause in youtube comments?
- culpable_pickle 5y agoHonestly, given the amount of obvious spam landing in my gmail inbox the last few months, I kinda think they gave up on fighting spam on gmail...