4 ms·

This is by design. You can't expect a free service to have highly trained human judgement whenever you want. They need it to run fully autonomous. And does ru

This is by design. You can't expect a free service to have highly trained human judgement whenever you want. They need it to run fully autonomous. And does run flawlessly for 99% of the users, which is impressive. I wish they offered a paid option in the 1% cases. Like an arbitration. But that would be a cost center for them, and they don't want it.

capableweb 4y ago
Maybe it should be the other way around, rather than putting the error on peoples expectation of what a free service can do, put the error on the operators expectation what kind of free services they can run? If you can't run a service without arbitrarily banning people (and inadvertently affecting their livelihood [ignoring the question if people should put their livelihood up to a free service in the first place]), maybe you need to adjust the service you're offering people? There is no requirement for them to run it fully autonomously, because obviously, they are unable to do so without punishing some of their users without any recurse. That's probably a sign it's really hard to run it autonomously, and they need to do something else. If you don't want your free service to be a cost center, then maybe change it to not be?
causi 4y ago
It's not a free service with shitty customer support. The free portion, viewing Youtube, has no customer support whatsoever. The non-free portion, which provides you video hosting and revenue sharing in exchange for your labor producing content, gives you shitty customer service.
hobofan 4y ago
> I wish they offered a paid option in the 1% cases. Like an arbitration. They don't even manage to provide adequate content reviews for the .1% (probably an even smaller percentile) of YouTube creators that bring in the big advertisment revenues for the platform. Providing good support for them would easily pay for itself, and is the single biggest issues creators have been raising for years but nothing has substantially changed.
qiskit 4y ago
> This is by design. Partly due to a dominant market share. If there was more competition, they'd more about user experience.

capableweb 4y ago

Maybe it should be the other way around, rather than putting the error on peoples expectation of what a free service can do, put the error on the operators expectation what kind of free services they can run? If you can't run a service without arbitrarily banning people (and inadvertently affecting their livelihood [ignoring the question if people should put their livelihood up to a free service in the first place]), maybe you need to adjust the service you're offering people? There is no requirement for them to run it fully autonomously, because obviously, they are unable to do so without punishing some of their users without any recurse. That's probably a sign it's really hard to run it autonomously, and they need to do something else. If you don't want your free service to be a cost center, then maybe change it to not be?

causi 4y ago

It's not a free service with shitty customer support. The free portion, viewing Youtube, has no customer support whatsoever. The non-free portion, which provides you video hosting and revenue sharing in exchange for your labor producing content, gives you shitty customer service.

hobofan 4y ago

> I wish they offered a paid option in the 1% cases. Like an arbitration. They don't even manage to provide adequate content reviews for the .1% (probably an even smaller percentile) of YouTube creators that bring in the big advertisment revenues for the platform. Providing good support for them would easily pay for itself, and is the single biggest issues creators have been raising for years but nothing has substantially changed.

qiskit 4y ago

> This is by design. Partly due to a dominant market share. If there was more competition, they'd more about user experience.