3 ms·

YouTube does not have the scale to manually review every time someone flags an ad. HN community believes that “oh, but MY report is high signal” which may be tr

YouTube does not have the scale to manually review every time someone flags an ad. HN community believes that “oh, but MY report is high signal” which may be true, but user reports as a whole are not high signal. So instead it’s going through some ML classifier first. An automatic answer saying “this doesn’t go against policy” does not mean that it escalated to YT staff who carefully considered the ad and said “actually, this is okay because we really want the revenue.” It means that whatever ML classifier took a look at it thought it was okay (which is probably bugged, given their typical speed at taking down fake livestreams in this vein).

tivert 3y ago
> YouTube does not have the scale to manually review every time someone flags an ad. HN community believes that “oh, but MY report is high signal” which may be true, but user reports as a whole are not high signal. So instead it’s going through some ML classifier first. So what? Youtube is trying to do the online equivalent of trying to police New York City with only 50 cops and a 911 answering machine that repeats "computer says no" on a loop. If New York City chooses to understaff their 911 call center, that's not an excuse for them not taking 911 calls.
ndriscoll 3y ago
Google should be reviewing all ads they show, and should absolutely be liable for the content, especially if they're alerted to the fact that it's a scam (which makes them not just negligent but an accessory).
wharvle 3y ago
Seems tough. Guess they should stop operating that kind of business if they can’t figure out how to do it without scamming people.
octacat 3y ago
You can review them with AI. They have info where link goes, who pays for it, who is targeted. Scammers would have to be more creative, when you automatically detect 90% of them. But currently I can say "Oh, I've seen this scam comment/scam ad scheme 100 times". I am pretty sure AI would figure out the same.
callalex 3y ago
It’s not impossible at all, just hire more people. That may not be as profitable, though.
gitaarik 3y ago
They can review the add companies and the adds they want to place. Also you can only review an active add when it gets X amount of flags.

tivert 3y ago

> YouTube does not have the scale to manually review every time someone flags an ad. HN community believes that “oh, but MY report is high signal” which may be true, but user reports as a whole are not high signal. So instead it’s going through some ML classifier first. So what? Youtube is trying to do the online equivalent of trying to police New York City with only 50 cops and a 911 answering machine that repeats "computer says no" on a loop. If New York City chooses to understaff their 911 call center, that's not an excuse for them not taking 911 calls.

ndriscoll 3y ago

Google should be reviewing all ads they show, and should absolutely be liable for the content, especially if they're alerted to the fact that it's a scam (which makes them not just negligent but an accessory).

wharvle 3y ago

Seems tough. Guess they should stop operating that kind of business if they can’t figure out how to do it without scamming people.

octacat 3y ago

You can review them with AI. They have info where link goes, who pays for it, who is targeted. Scammers would have to be more creative, when you automatically detect 90% of them. But currently I can say "Oh, I've seen this scam comment/scam ad scheme 100 times". I am pretty sure AI would figure out the same.

callalex 3y ago

It’s not impossible at all, just hire more people. That may not be as profitable, though.

gitaarik 3y ago

They can review the add companies and the adds they want to place. Also you can only review an active add when it gets X amount of flags.