3 ms·

> It is a curious ‘small government’ instinct that wants government capabilities to be restricted from ever becoming efficient or scalable Efficiency would be

> It is a curious ‘small government’ instinct that wants government capabilities to be restricted from ever becoming efficient or scalable Efficiency would be great if it was used to save money. But surely you've heard of the Jevons paradox. This kind of cheap surveillance does not make the government smaller and it has all kinds of bad effects. > even though the population and economy and complexity of the world the government is tasked with regulating scales up. Car stuff isn't changing much. They don't need better tracking of where you drive. > But often the inverse argument is used in respect of private corporations. Obviously it would be unreasonable to expect Google to vet every ad and YouTube video uploaded tot heir platform, and make responsible editorial decisions about which ads and content to show to children. Surely to allow them to scale arbitrarily large we must make sure not to overly burden them with regulations. Well, vetting every video would not be reasonable even at a small scale business with the same business model. While vetting every ad is very possible. I don't think I've seen anyone claim youtube is unable to vet ads if they significantly wanted to?

jameshart 2mo ago
YouTube absolutely claim not to be vetting every ad they serve. That is why so many outright fraudulent ads get shown by them. In the same industry we have Meta using AI to generate and display ads that even the advertiser hasn’t vetted. > vetting every video would not be reasonable even at a small scale business with the same business model. A small scale business like… a cable tv company? They certainly historically were assumed to be responsible for every piece of video content they took from a creator and broadcast.
- Forgeties79 2mo ago
  Exactly. “We’re too big” is the most insane excuse. If I just get big enough I can say “nah the law doesn’t apply to me”? I’m not naïve I understand that’s kind of how the world works, but should be really be supporting this?
- Dylan16807 2mo ago
  > YouTube absolutely claim not to be vetting every ad they serve. That is a true statement that is very different from my claim that they could. > A small scale business like… a cable tv company? No, cable is a very different business model. If youtube only allowed business accounts worth millions of dollars it would get halfway there. And it would be the end of "you"tube.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]

jameshart 2mo ago

YouTube absolutely claim not to be vetting every ad they serve. That is why so many outright fraudulent ads get shown by them. In the same industry we have Meta using AI to generate and display ads that even the advertiser hasn’t vetted. > vetting every video would not be reasonable even at a small scale business with the same business model. A small scale business like… a cable tv company? They certainly historically were assumed to be responsible for every piece of video content they took from a creator and broadcast.

Forgeties79 2mo ago
Exactly. “We’re too big” is the most insane excuse. If I just get big enough I can say “nah the law doesn’t apply to me”? I’m not naïve I understand that’s kind of how the world works, but should be really be supporting this?
Dylan16807 2mo ago
> YouTube absolutely claim not to be vetting every ad they serve. That is a true statement that is very different from my claim that they could. > A small scale business like… a cable tv company? No, cable is a very different business model. If youtube only allowed business accounts worth millions of dollars it would get halfway there. And it would be the end of "you"tube.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]