Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

gamefromscratch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 362 posts

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

#251

Post by acituan »

judge2020 wrote: post #188
acituan wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A few scattered moderation complaints compared to wholesale rate limiting of incoming content I'm sure there is already some per-user upload rate limits in place to prevent gross abuse. It is a matter of playing with these parameters. Rate limits don't have to be distributed mindlessly equally globally. Just like in Hacker News or in Twitter, certain proxy variables like the account age and karma scores are used to…

> Rate limits don't have to be distributed mindlessly equally globally. Yet that's what the grandparent comment is suggesting: > Can’t Youtube say “given the current accuracy/precision of ML based solutions and how much our manual operations can scale, we are going to rate limit the content that circulates to match our ability of giving the best judgment on what videos to take down and what videos to keep”. YT alread…

> they just lean towards letting more content on rather than less

Come on. It is more than a lean. Growth is an explicit, fractal goal at every level.

> The grandparent suggests that they start limiting uploads in a way that more regular uploaders (eg. a few videos a day) would feel

I didn't give implementation details on the rate limit, because as I preambled, this was a thought experiment, not a design document. They whole point is to underline the fact that, there is a cost of making the review process better (whether automatic or manual) and to what extent corners should be cut versus this cost should be paid seems to be informed by the objective to grow at any cost.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

#253

Post by gerland »

gkoberger wrote: post #12

This might not be a popular opinion, but I feel like YouTube is doing their best with a really hard problem. I see a lot of people complaining about things like this, but I also see a lot of people complaining that YouTube/Twitter/etc aren't doing enough to take down false/immoral/illegal content quick enough. [1] It really sucks when a legitimate video is taken down by mistake. But it also really sucks when revenge…

They try their best to keep their business as profitable as possible. This often means they just don't want to analyse content in a sufficient way, although it should be possible to do it in an automated way. It's better to take down 10 videos with the word pedophilia, even if 9 of them talk about how to make your kid safe, than to spend computing power on a more detailed analysis. Why bother, those videos won't sell ads anyway. It's one of the reason that the whole "I'm a private company na na na na na na ha ha ha ha ha ha, you can't regulate me!" argument is so weak.

Not every problem can be solved with automation, because content adapts. If there will be people involved, there will be biases and scandals. Not that I trust people designing algorithms to be some kind of saints.

We know now that people are more likely to discriminate basing on political orientation than race. Basically all the people that would be racists 100 years ago now took a different angle to be able to behave in the same manner. I do not trust moderators and overlords, because they seem to be all from one political orientation. Being a black person 100 years ago, would you trust an all-white private company to handle all your information in an equal way, even knowing that some of the data exposes illegal practices of the said company? It's absurd to think that anyone under those circumstances would be 100% clean and it's just plain insane to thinnk we can hold hundrets of thousands of people at the same time to thius standard.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

#254

Post by colechristensen »

acituan wrote: post #244
colechristensen wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Zero complaints is a straw-man end-state. The comment of yours I was responding to >use it to optimize user frustration rather than minimize it It is not at all a straw man. You are criticizing nonzero optimization and encouraging minimization. To minimize is to have a goal of zero. What other definitions do minimize and optimize have in the dichotomy you are trying to make here?

> To minimize is to have a goal of zero That's not what minimize means at all, hence my straw man argument. Minimize means reducing the amount as much as possible while still satisfying other parameters of your equation. Zero makes the whole operation nonviable as we agree due to diminishing returns, so it doesn't satisfy that definition. The dichotomy of optimizing user frustration and minimizing user frustration is…

> Minimize means reducing the amount as much as possible while still satisfying other parameters of your equation.

> basically a question of what parameter gets what valence in the whole objective function

You're splitting extremely fine hairs there, your difference between minimize and optimize seems to be not much more than how much you like a term "satisfying other parameters of your equation".

>Minimize means reducing the amount as much as possible while still satisfying other parameters of your equation.

You have to stop after "as much as possible". Adding a "while still" makes it optimization, your value judgment doesn't get to determine what does and does not fit inside the "while still" of minimize.

Once somebody calls me out for a logical fallacy based on their own difficult to understand definitions of seemingly common words... if that can't be resolved there really isn't a point in continuing, it's not like we could really communicate anything much less make arguments if we can't agree what minimize means.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

#255

Post by loup-vaillant »

gkoberger wrote: post #12

This might not be a popular opinion, but I feel like YouTube is doing their best with a really hard problem. I see a lot of people complaining about things like this, but I also see a lot of people complaining that YouTube/Twitter/etc aren't doing enough to take down false/immoral/illegal content quick enough. [1] It really sucks when a legitimate video is taken down by mistake. But it also really sucks when revenge…

> I feel like YouTube is doing their best with a really hard problem

Two aspects of the problems are very easy: first, the automated parts of the review system can be marked as such. Automated emails can trivially be signed "You Tube Bot" or something (such signalling should perhaps be mandated by law). Second, when a video has been reviewed and found "not guilty" once, it can be marked as such, and past reviews recorded. Preventing automated takedowns for the same reason, or requiring stronger reviews, is trivial (though more costly for the videos that do end up being re-reviewed).

They may have other reasons not to pluck those two low hanging fruits, but difficulty is probably not one of them.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

#256

Post by x0 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #208
vorpalhex wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then your company doesn't get to scale. Sorry, but you can't skip support because it's not cost effective, just like you can't skip financial regulations or data regs. You don't get to use the excuse of "Sorry we are too busy making billions, maybe we wouldn't have to cut corners if we weren't so successful."

The problem isn't scale. Scale is just how they made a lot of money. If you make a dollar a billion times you made a billion dollars. The problem is that good customer support costs more than $1. It costs more than what they make from the average user, so the average user can't have it. That would still be true if they had 100 times less users. It's a result of the service being free, not the service being large.

Alphabet could pay for proper customer service, though. It's not as if they're doing badly. Come on, 40b in revenue and nearly 7b profit last quarter [0]. Unfortunately it won't happen unless they're forced to.

[0] https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/1909764/alphabet-google-pr...

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

#258

Post by drukenemo »

gkoberger wrote: post #12

This might not be a popular opinion, but I feel like YouTube is doing their best with a really hard problem. I see a lot of people complaining about things like this, but I also see a lot of people complaining that YouTube/Twitter/etc aren't doing enough to take down false/immoral/illegal content quick enough. [1] It really sucks when a legitimate video is taken down by mistake. But it also really sucks when revenge…

The question for me is, why censor/remove false information? Who is the judge? And even if something is blatantly false, we cannot allow it to be manifested?

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

#259

Post by mcv »

gkoberger wrote: post #12

This might not be a popular opinion, but I feel like YouTube is doing their best with a really hard problem. I see a lot of people complaining about things like this, but I also see a lot of people complaining that YouTube/Twitter/etc aren't doing enough to take down false/immoral/illegal content quick enough. [1] It really sucks when a legitimate video is taken down by mistake. But it also really sucks when revenge…

Part of the problem is also internet anonymity. I know there are cases where this anonymity is important, but there are also clearly cases where it hurts, and this is one.

Addressing this problem would be a lot easier if Youtube could identify the people who make these false claims and upload the illegal content. But because they can always create a new account, they stay anonymous.

Maybe an alternative would be to take long-existing, well-established accounts more seriously. That way troll accounts have a harder time taking advantage of legitimate users. It would still suck if you're a new user who gets faced with this kind of abuse, though.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

#260

Post by solveit »

brigandish wrote: post #198
thaumasiotes wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> How many customers would each [CSR] be handling per day? You need to answer that one before concluding that customers' experience would improve.

If we assume that each CSR can handle an average number of cases then the absolute number of cases handled by a human increase with even 1 CSR taken on. The Mythical Man Month doesn't apply as there's no time limit on it. So no, I don't need to answer that beyond any number greater than there are now , which I already did.

Sure it would go up. But will it be significant? Or will it be a drop in the ocean. You do need numbers to answer this question.
Post reply on HN