5 ms·

It was 30,000 hours of new content an hour on average a few months ago. That's 720,000 hours a day. The average video is reportedly 11.7 minutes, which makes it

It was 30,000 hours of new content an hour on average a few months ago. That's 720,000 hours a day. The average video is reportedly 11.7 minutes, which makes it about 4M new videos per day. You're off by about an order of magnitude. Edit: 10% of videos with more than a thousand views is reportedly acurate. That makes it 50,000 videos per day according to your numbers, and with 25 videos reviewed a day on average by person, that makes it 2,000 persons with your numbers, not 200, so you're off by another order or magnitude. For 10% of 4M, that would be 16,000 people, or, what, 10% of Alphabet's workforce? Youtube itself reportedly has 2,800 employees.

Dylan16807 4y ago
Huh, I didn't think a 2016 number would be that wildly different. Okay, 4 million videos. So if we adjust the moderation percent to 5% that would mean 800 moderators. And focusing on videos with 10k views would need 1/4 of that. Videos with 100k views would be 1/10 of that. And this is a channel that gets millions of views. There's only going to be a couple thousand videos per day at the million+ tier. A handful of people could provide white glove moderation to all of them. Edit to your edit: I think you skipped the part where most videos don't need to be reviewed. Take that 16k and divide it by 10 or 20 or 50.
- laumars 4y ago
  The problem we have is that popular content creators are the most susceptible to the problems caused by YTs moderation. Your solution only reinforces that problem since you’re excluding unpopular content creators. You’re also making the assumption that humans are going to moderate consistently but that simply isn’t true. Different people will draw the line at different points and our mood will also vary the line too. Review guidelines would only only help with measurable criteria but so often what constitutes as acceptable or not is a lot more nuanced.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Your solution only reinforces that problem since you’re excluding unpopular content creators. If you're not even getting a thousand views then it's not going to be a big deal if some of your videos get messed with. Annoying but not important to your life. Just about anyone that would seriously call themselves a content creator, even as a hobby, should be above that bar. I'm in favor of good moderation for everyone, sure, but I want to hammer home just how easily they could provide good moderation to any video with traction.
    - laumars 4y ago
      > If you're not even getting a thousand views then it's not going to be a big deal if some of your videos get messed with. I don’t think uploaders would agree with that sentiment. For starters not every video uploaded is by online personalities. A lot of corporate entities use YT. I’ve been on mental health courses that had material on YT too. These videos aren’t going to receive thousands of videos but the content is just as critical for their operations (arguments about whether they should use YT is another topic). And you’re still overlooking the injustice that the larger personalities would feel if they have content demonetised or even banned while smaller channels have the same content available. It’s a nice idea you have but it’s creating an uneven playing field so would have just as many problems as the status quo. Edit: also let’s not forget that your suggestion is easy to weaponise. If you’re a smaller channel competing with a larger one then you can abuse the moderation system by reporting the other channel. Thus any moderation system has the be universal or else it’s going to be abused.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        > I don’t think uploaders would agree with that sentiment. Which uploaders? I spent a while looking through my subscriptions on youtube, and nothing I'd call a creator is below that line, not even this obscure meme channel that got banned once. Just an acquaintance's personal channel and the archives of risc-v presentations, and neither of those channels would be bothered very much by a rogue bot flagging. > For starters not every video uploaded is by online personalities. A lot of corporate entities use YT. I’ve been on mental health courses that had material on YT too. These videos aren’t going to receive thousands of videos but the content is just as critical for their operations (arguments about whether they should use YT is another topic). Well those aren't going to be monetized or affected by this kind of thing. And if youtube goes weird they can use any other video host; they don't need youtube or its userbase. > It’s a nice idea you have but it’s creating an uneven playing field so would have just as many problems as the status quo. Add those few hundred moderators in addition to whatever the hell exists already and it should improve a lot while having roughly zero downside. > And you’re still overlooking the injustice that the larger personalities would feel if they have content demonetised or even banned while smaller channels have the same content available. I don't know what you mean or why that would happen. > also let’s not forget that your suggestion is easy to weaponise. If you’re a smaller channel competing with a larger one then you can abuse the moderation system by reporting the other channel. Thus any moderation system has the be universal or else it’s going to be abused. How is that a problem? The moderator will look at it and reject it, and the small channel might get punished if it keeps doing that. And small channels can already report big channels. I really don't understand this scenario.
hvis 4y ago
The moderators only really need to review the videos already flagged by the automatic process, and the classification ML thingy can add the timestamps with positions the "objectionable content" is featured at, so the mods wouldn't need to view the video in whole. How many of the videos are flagged down, though, we probably don't have any solid statistic on that.
MisterSandman 4y ago
You don't need to review ALL new content, just content that gets traction or is manually flagged by the uploader as being wrongly marked by the AI.

Dylan16807 4y ago

Huh, I didn't think a 2016 number would be that wildly different. Okay, 4 million videos. So if we adjust the moderation percent to 5% that would mean 800 moderators. And focusing on videos with 10k views would need 1/4 of that. Videos with 100k views would be 1/10 of that. And this is a channel that gets millions of views. There's only going to be a couple thousand videos per day at the million+ tier. A handful of people could provide white glove moderation to all of them. Edit to your edit: I think you skipped the part where most videos don't need to be reviewed. Take that 16k and divide it by 10 or 20 or 50.

laumars 4y ago
The problem we have is that popular content creators are the most susceptible to the problems caused by YTs moderation. Your solution only reinforces that problem since you’re excluding unpopular content creators. You’re also making the assumption that humans are going to moderate consistently but that simply isn’t true. Different people will draw the line at different points and our mood will also vary the line too. Review guidelines would only only help with measurable criteria but so often what constitutes as acceptable or not is a lot more nuanced.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Your solution only reinforces that problem since you’re excluding unpopular content creators. If you're not even getting a thousand views then it's not going to be a big deal if some of your videos get messed with. Annoying but not important to your life. Just about anyone that would seriously call themselves a content creator, even as a hobby, should be above that bar. I'm in favor of good moderation for everyone, sure, but I want to hammer home just how easily they could provide good moderation to any video with traction.
  - laumars 4y ago
    > If you're not even getting a thousand views then it's not going to be a big deal if some of your videos get messed with. I don’t think uploaders would agree with that sentiment. For starters not every video uploaded is by online personalities. A lot of corporate entities use YT. I’ve been on mental health courses that had material on YT too. These videos aren’t going to receive thousands of videos but the content is just as critical for their operations (arguments about whether they should use YT is another topic). And you’re still overlooking the injustice that the larger personalities would feel if they have content demonetised or even banned while smaller channels have the same content available. It’s a nice idea you have but it’s creating an uneven playing field so would have just as many problems as the status quo. Edit: also let’s not forget that your suggestion is easy to weaponise. If you’re a smaller channel competing with a larger one then you can abuse the moderation system by reporting the other channel. Thus any moderation system has the be universal or else it’s going to be abused.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > I don’t think uploaders would agree with that sentiment. Which uploaders? I spent a while looking through my subscriptions on youtube, and nothing I'd call a creator is below that line, not even this obscure meme channel that got banned once. Just an acquaintance's personal channel and the archives of risc-v presentations, and neither of those channels would be bothered very much by a rogue bot flagging. > For starters not every video uploaded is by online personalities. A lot of corporate entities use YT. I’ve been on mental health courses that had material on YT too. These videos aren’t going to receive thousands of videos but the content is just as critical for their operations (arguments about whether they should use YT is another topic). Well those aren't going to be monetized or affected by this kind of thing. And if youtube goes weird they can use any other video host; they don't need youtube or its userbase. > It’s a nice idea you have but it’s creating an uneven playing field so would have just as many problems as the status quo. Add those few hundred moderators in addition to whatever the hell exists already and it should improve a lot while having roughly zero downside. > And you’re still overlooking the injustice that the larger personalities would feel if they have content demonetised or even banned while smaller channels have the same content available. I don't know what you mean or why that would happen. > also let’s not forget that your suggestion is easy to weaponise. If you’re a smaller channel competing with a larger one then you can abuse the moderation system by reporting the other channel. Thus any moderation system has the be universal or else it’s going to be abused. How is that a problem? The moderator will look at it and reject it, and the small channel might get punished if it keeps doing that. And small channels can already report big channels. I really don't understand this scenario.

hvis 4y ago

The moderators only really need to review the videos already flagged by the automatic process, and the classification ML thingy can add the timestamps with positions the "objectionable content" is featured at, so the mods wouldn't need to view the video in whole. How many of the videos are flagged down, though, we probably don't have any solid statistic on that.

MisterSandman 4y ago

You don't need to review ALL new content, just content that gets traction or is manually flagged by the uploader as being wrongly marked by the AI.