5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - Skgqie1 4y ago
    > I gave examples I think they meant specific examples (as opposed to hypothetical or vague examples) > I’m pretty sure they’ll be affect by their channel getting suspended ;) Unless I'm misunderstanding the other guy incorrectly, what they're proposing is additive. If I understand right, you're essentially saying "But people without manual moderation might be unfairly impacted by automation". But it's a bigger problem without the custom moderation the other guy is suggesting? > In my experience the people who claim “zero downsides” are the last people who should be making business decisions. Fortunately, it sounds like the other guy isn't making any business decisions in this specific context. So why not just stick to addressing the (de)merits of their suggestion, and leave the veiled insults out? > Every design has a trade off and all too often there are unforeseen consequences too. Stating a self-apparent truism doesn't bring much value either. Even if someone here wasn't aware of this idea, stating it as an abstract doesn't really help the discussion much, and seems like a bad faith comment to make. > 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. Attacking the guys seniority doesn't add any value and is a fallacy. If you seriously believe there are downsides, why not state them instead of insulting the dude? > 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. My dude, this doesn't just sound condescending, it is condescending. This trailing comment borders on outright gaslighting. The fact you're aware it is condescending but decide to say it anyway means you're not sorry either - otherwise you wouldn't have said it in the first place? I'll spare you a self-righteous diatribe about bitter, unempathetic co-workers, since I'm sure you'll agree it's not relevant.

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.
- Skgqie1 4y ago
  > I gave examples I think they meant specific examples (as opposed to hypothetical or vague examples) > I’m pretty sure they’ll be affect by their channel getting suspended ;) Unless I'm misunderstanding the other guy incorrectly, what they're proposing is additive. If I understand right, you're essentially saying "But people without manual moderation might be unfairly impacted by automation". But it's a bigger problem without the custom moderation the other guy is suggesting? > In my experience the people who claim “zero downsides” are the last people who should be making business decisions. Fortunately, it sounds like the other guy isn't making any business decisions in this specific context. So why not just stick to addressing the (de)merits of their suggestion, and leave the veiled insults out? > Every design has a trade off and all too often there are unforeseen consequences too. Stating a self-apparent truism doesn't bring much value either. Even if someone here wasn't aware of this idea, stating it as an abstract doesn't really help the discussion much, and seems like a bad faith comment to make. > 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. Attacking the guys seniority doesn't add any value and is a fallacy. If you seriously believe there are downsides, why not state them instead of insulting the dude? > 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. My dude, this doesn't just sound condescending, it is condescending. This trailing comment borders on outright gaslighting. The fact you're aware it is condescending but decide to say it anyway means you're not sorry either - otherwise you wouldn't have said it in the first place? I'll spare you a self-righteous diatribe about bitter, unempathetic co-workers, since I'm sure you'll agree it's not relevant.