3 ms·

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 probl

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.
    - laumars 4y ago
      > Which uploaders? I gave examples. > Well those aren't going to be monetized or affected by this kind of thing. I’m pretty sure they’ll be affect by their channel getting suspended ;) > And if youtube goes weird they can use any other video host; they don't need youtube or its userbase. It’s not as straightforward as you suggest when busy orgs with no dedicated IT resource has to re-upload thousands of hours of training material to a new platform they likely haven’t heard of before. You’re point of view here is pretty narrow compared to how the wider usage of YT. > it should improve a lot while having roughly zero downside In my experience the people who claim “zero downsides” are the last people who should be making business decisions. Every design has a trade off and all too often there are unforeseen consequences too. If you honestly believe there are zero downsides then you haven’t spent long enough in the industry at the level of seniority required to understand the the consequences. Sorry if this sounds condescending but I’ve worked with so many engineers who have believed they shit gold only for them to discover they knew far less about the job then they believed they did.

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.
  - laumars 4y ago
    > Which uploaders? I gave examples. > Well those aren't going to be monetized or affected by this kind of thing. I’m pretty sure they’ll be affect by their channel getting suspended ;) > And if youtube goes weird they can use any other video host; they don't need youtube or its userbase. It’s not as straightforward as you suggest when busy orgs with no dedicated IT resource has to re-upload thousands of hours of training material to a new platform they likely haven’t heard of before. You’re point of view here is pretty narrow compared to how the wider usage of YT. > it should improve a lot while having roughly zero downside In my experience the people who claim “zero downsides” are the last people who should be making business decisions. Every design has a trade off and all too often there are unforeseen consequences too. If you honestly believe there are zero downsides then you haven’t spent long enough in the industry at the level of seniority required to understand the the consequences. Sorry if this sounds condescending but I’ve worked with so many engineers who have believed they shit gold only for them to discover they knew far less about the job then they believed they did.