4 ms·

I hope YouTube will focus on human based moderation / curation of content and clean transparent guidelines in the future instead of those robots with flawed alg

I hope YouTube will focus on human based moderation / curation of content and clean transparent guidelines in the future instead of those robots with flawed algorithms. They have so many years and resources to create moderation robots but it keeps happening over and over again. At this point people are loosing lives because of poor YT decisions.

nojito 4y ago
They can't afford it. If social media is forced to human moderate 100% of their content, they will all cease to exist financially.
- Xelbair 4y ago
  Then maybe they should cease to exist?
  - lnxg33k1 4y ago
    Looking forward to that day
  - drstewart 4y ago
    So you think nearly every platform with user submitted content should cease to exist?
    - highwind 4y ago
      Maybe platform that's impossible to moderate shouldn't exist? While I understand the good that YouTube brings, it has such a huge negative side that I wouldn't miss it if it were gone.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - marak830 4y ago
      I think they should be held to a higher standard than they currently are.
    - chongli 4y ago
      Hacker News is a platform with user submitted content and human moderation. It is still going strong. I am a reader of some hobby forums and subreddits that also use human moderation. They are going strong as well. If I woke up next day and we had laws that made automated content platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok impossible as business models then it would be no great loss for me. I see zero issues standing in the way of human moderated replacements. Personally, I use YouTube and Instagram similarly to how I use Reddit: I heavily curare who I follow/subscribe to anyway. I get a lot more enjoyment out of seeing new videos by people I’ve followed for years who don’t post very often than I do from some recommendation to a viral clickbait video.
      - drstewart 4y ago
        >then it would be no great loss for me So far all the responses to me have revolved around "well I don't care about it, so ban it" Not a great argument. There is plenty of stuff you no doubt enjoy (like your hobby forums) that I don't care about. Should I advocate for banning them?
        chongli 4y ago
        I didn’t say anything about banning any content whatsoever. The argument is whether social media platforms should be held accountable to the point where human moderation is necessary. To that I say yes. Human beings function best in small communities where light moderation, strong norms, and reputation are allowed to develop. These social media giants are trying to replace what has worked for millennia with unaccountable, automated, authoritarian systems. Is it any wonder that pathological behaviour would predominate?
    - yucky 4y ago
      Forums managed to moderate their own content for decades. Maybe the problem is scale, so yes to the platforms that are too large and unwieldy.
    - Xelbair 4y ago
      if they don't moderate it up to a standard? yes. to use dreaded food analogy - same thing with food safety, if restaurant isn't up to the standards they get closed down.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- iinnPP 4y ago
  Why not? I used to admin a fan-site for EA Games with ~30,000 users and 2 volunteer mods(friends). Didn't seem all that difficult. You don't have to get everything either. People just need it to feel fair and the bad actors just need to feel some pressure. A lot of it ends up handling itself.
  - weberer 4y ago
    I'm guessing that was long enough ago that all the bad actors were still actual humans.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    As a volunteer
  - sigio 4y ago
    Back in 2019: 500 Hours of Video Uploaded to YouTube Every Minute There's no way to manually (using people) to moderate this.... but it should be easier to report bad videos and have people just look at those for moderation, and not just auto-ban videos when enough people click on it.
    - phh 4y ago
      Quick computation: 500hrs/minute => 262Mhrs/yr, US minimum wage 7.25$/hr, assuming no tool (but no verification), 1x playback rate, 2B$/yr, youtube revenue was reported at 15B$/yr in 2019. Yes they can afford it.
      - beej71 4y ago
        More nebulous is YouTube profit, which might be as low as zero (I can't find a source). But the net earnings are over $30 billion for the whole company, so it could come from there. That said, would human content moderation be particularly better? Lots of stuff falls in the gray.
        phh 4y ago
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
These systems have such a staggering amount of content and are only profitable at scale. Moderating them in their current form with humans would be expensive and difficult if not impossible. https://www.statista.com/statistics/259477/hours-of-video-uploaded-to-youtube-every-minute/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/259477/hours-of-video-up... > 500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. This is why Section 230 needs a revision IMO. There is zero incentive for anybody to moderate properly.
- Asooka 4y ago
  It would be ok if YouTube only moderates really popular channels and videos that have the most potential to cause harm. As always, the problem is scale - solutions that work for my 5-man IRC server do not scale to YouTube's size. So, a video with 5 views probably doesn't need manual attention. Even if it is extremely misleading and dangerous. Once you have a few million views of your "just jab high voltage electrodes into some wet wood, it's safe!" video, then it should be up for manual review. You absolutely can have an algorithm decide if the video has any one of several potentially dangerous topics and then flag it for manual review. I'm certain YouTube already does that with a myriad of other topics, they just need to improve their methods a bit.
CoastalCoder 4y ago
> At this point people are loosing lives because of poor YT decisions. I'm not sure YouTube is entirely to blame here. Adults should have some discernment about their sources of information. That said, if YouTube is curating the videos in a way that suppresses important safety information, I consider them to bear significant responsibility. (No idea if the legal systems would agree.)
- falcolas 4y ago
  > Adults should have some discernment about their sources of information. Not to necessarily disagree, but it’s a learned skill, a skill that some 65% of the population simply doesn’t have. https://goingdigital.oecd.org/indicator/24 https://goingdigital.oecd.org/indicator/24
  - BrandoElFollito 4y ago
    This is called natural selection. And a soft one, nobody is asking people to fight a bear with bare hands or something. Just do not do what an average Joe terms you too.

nojito 4y ago

They can't afford it. If social media is forced to human moderate 100% of their content, they will all cease to exist financially.

Xelbair 4y ago
Then maybe they should cease to exist?
- lnxg33k1 4y ago
  Looking forward to that day
- drstewart 4y ago
  So you think nearly every platform with user submitted content should cease to exist?
  - highwind 4y ago
    Maybe platform that's impossible to moderate shouldn't exist? While I understand the good that YouTube brings, it has such a huge negative side that I wouldn't miss it if it were gone.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - marak830 4y ago
    I think they should be held to a higher standard than they currently are.
  - chongli 4y ago
    Hacker News is a platform with user submitted content and human moderation. It is still going strong. I am a reader of some hobby forums and subreddits that also use human moderation. They are going strong as well. If I woke up next day and we had laws that made automated content platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok impossible as business models then it would be no great loss for me. I see zero issues standing in the way of human moderated replacements. Personally, I use YouTube and Instagram similarly to how I use Reddit: I heavily curare who I follow/subscribe to anyway. I get a lot more enjoyment out of seeing new videos by people I’ve followed for years who don’t post very often than I do from some recommendation to a viral clickbait video.
    - drstewart 4y ago
      >then it would be no great loss for me So far all the responses to me have revolved around "well I don't care about it, so ban it" Not a great argument. There is plenty of stuff you no doubt enjoy (like your hobby forums) that I don't care about. Should I advocate for banning them?
      - chongli 4y ago
        I didn’t say anything about banning any content whatsoever. The argument is whether social media platforms should be held accountable to the point where human moderation is necessary. To that I say yes. Human beings function best in small communities where light moderation, strong norms, and reputation are allowed to develop. These social media giants are trying to replace what has worked for millennia with unaccountable, automated, authoritarian systems. Is it any wonder that pathological behaviour would predominate?
  - yucky 4y ago
    Forums managed to moderate their own content for decades. Maybe the problem is scale, so yes to the platforms that are too large and unwieldy.
  - Xelbair 4y ago
    if they don't moderate it up to a standard? yes. to use dreaded food analogy - same thing with food safety, if restaurant isn't up to the standards they get closed down.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
iinnPP 4y ago
Why not? I used to admin a fan-site for EA Games with ~30,000 users and 2 volunteer mods(friends). Didn't seem all that difficult. You don't have to get everything either. People just need it to feel fair and the bad actors just need to feel some pressure. A lot of it ends up handling itself.
- weberer 4y ago
  I'm guessing that was long enough ago that all the bad actors were still actual humans.
- themitigating 4y ago
  As a volunteer
- sigio 4y ago
  Back in 2019: 500 Hours of Video Uploaded to YouTube Every Minute There's no way to manually (using people) to moderate this.... but it should be easier to report bad videos and have people just look at those for moderation, and not just auto-ban videos when enough people click on it.
  - phh 4y ago
    Quick computation: 500hrs/minute => 262Mhrs/yr, US minimum wage 7.25$/hr, assuming no tool (but no verification), 1x playback rate, 2B$/yr, youtube revenue was reported at 15B$/yr in 2019. Yes they can afford it.
    - beej71 4y ago
      More nebulous is YouTube profit, which might be as low as zero (I can't find a source). But the net earnings are over $30 billion for the whole company, so it could come from there. That said, would human content moderation be particularly better? Lots of stuff falls in the gray.
      - phh 4y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

These systems have such a staggering amount of content and are only profitable at scale. Moderating them in their current form with humans would be expensive and difficult if not impossible. https://www.statista.com/statistics/259477/hours-of-video-uploaded-to-youtube-every-minute/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/259477/hours-of-video-up... > 500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. This is why Section 230 needs a revision IMO. There is zero incentive for anybody to moderate properly.

Asooka 4y ago
It would be ok if YouTube only moderates really popular channels and videos that have the most potential to cause harm. As always, the problem is scale - solutions that work for my 5-man IRC server do not scale to YouTube's size. So, a video with 5 views probably doesn't need manual attention. Even if it is extremely misleading and dangerous. Once you have a few million views of your "just jab high voltage electrodes into some wet wood, it's safe!" video, then it should be up for manual review. You absolutely can have an algorithm decide if the video has any one of several potentially dangerous topics and then flag it for manual review. I'm certain YouTube already does that with a myriad of other topics, they just need to improve their methods a bit.

CoastalCoder 4y ago

> At this point people are loosing lives because of poor YT decisions. I'm not sure YouTube is entirely to blame here. Adults should have some discernment about their sources of information. That said, if YouTube is curating the videos in a way that suppresses important safety information, I consider them to bear significant responsibility. (No idea if the legal systems would agree.)

falcolas 4y ago
> Adults should have some discernment about their sources of information. Not to necessarily disagree, but it’s a learned skill, a skill that some 65% of the population simply doesn’t have. https://goingdigital.oecd.org/indicator/24 https://goingdigital.oecd.org/indicator/24
- BrandoElFollito 4y ago
  This is called natural selection. And a soft one, nobody is asking people to fight a bear with bare hands or something. Just do not do what an average Joe terms you too.