4 ms·
> “it’s a large company” doesn’t translate to “they have large teams working on this” but “they have many other problems prioritised over this”. I don't think
by jorams 5y ago
> “it’s a large company” doesn’t translate to “they have large teams working on this” but “they have many other problems prioritised over this”.
I don't think anyone needs to be reminded of that. "Company X with way more resources is failing at basic tasks" doesn't signal a misunderstanding of what those resources are used for, it is criticism of that company's priorities.
The fact is that a company whose profits grow by billions every year is not fixing a very obvious problem on one of their biggest platforms. They have more than enough the resources to fix it.
- bertil 5y agoTheir profits would only be relevant if they underpaid the staff that could fix that problem (machine-learning specialists, because you can’t imagine addressing this by hand). They don’t. Whatever lack of ressource they might have isn’t fixable with money alone. They prioritise other issues; comments, more so, comments on comments, are nowhere near the core feature of the platform. They have, seemingly, addressed issues on copyright infringement, people gaming the recommendation system and first-level comments—things that the same creators have been loudly complaining about earlier. That sound like a reasonnable prioritisation system. The phenomena that has been described is apparently new, so the issue is presumably that they aren’t able to react to new threats rapidly. That would be a new structural concern for them, and not something that they would be expected to have fixed as a large company.