281–290 of 362 posts
I'm not discounting that this was an annoying ordeal for this channel to go through, but if this is so easy, why don't professional criminals go after huge channels and take them down as easily? There might be some subscriber count threshold or partner status that, once crossed, flags extra steps that mean a new violation is escalated for a closer look first?
Google has an absolute fetish for making the ratio of profit to employees as large as possible. They will do it at any cost. There is no Google service without horrific customer support. Youtube, Google Fiber, Google Fi, doesn't matter. They refuse to accept that having 2x as many customers requires 2x as many support personnel.
As an exercise, please do a back of an envelope calculation and estimate costs and features of a good (feel free to use your own definition) customer service for a mainstream video streaming platform with users ranging from 3 to 99. You have: - 2 billion monthly active users - 73% of US adults - The most-downloaded iOS app in 2018 - As of December 2018, installed on 5 billion Android devices - One billion hours of co…
The only one that matters is "how many complaint-review-hours do I get?"
For instance, you might lower complaint-review-hours by letting complainants submit timestamps and prioritizing complaints with timestamps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ability to transact anonymously online shouldn't be understated.
Transact for what? What am I more likely to need bitcoin for than to pay off some script kiddie?
I don't have a credit card. A site can either support Paypal (ugh), or support our nice secure local payment system (marginally likely), or they can support Bitcoin and then a Bitcoin payment provider has to support our nice secure local payment system, which is much more likely. Either way, once the money is in Bitcoin, I am the only one responsible for the security of my wallet, and if I lose that I'll at least know it's my fault.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an exercise, please do a back of an envelope calculation and estimate costs and features of a good (feel free to use your own definition) customer service for a mainstream video streaming platform with users ranging from 3 to 99. You have: - 2 billion monthly active users - 73% of US adults - The most-downloaded iOS app in 2018 - As of December 2018, installed on 5 billion Android devices - One billion hours of co…
None of those stats matter at all. The only one that matters is "how many complaint-review-hours do I get?" For instance, you might lower complaint-review-hours by letting complainants submit timestamps and prioritizing complaints with timestamps.
Let's put a number on the complaint-review-hours with the current stats.
A human can do X cases/hour, but if you have more cases than humans can handle your backlog will start to grow steadily. At this point you either hire more people or start to automate things, after all you don't want a city of people moderating stuff.
So what's your target number and what do you guess the actual number is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to say "there has to be something between the best customer service and things like letting shitting "AI" ban accounts" as an armchair hackernews user. But maybe, there isn't, currently. Maybe there simply isn't a solution at the scale of companies like Google.
'scale' is often used as a cop-out. If you double your customer count, and double your revenue, then you can double your customer support resources. O(n) does not become impractical just because the number gets really big. If they can't deal with something, the fundamental design is wrong, and would fail even if they downsized a thousandfold.
Even if you could double your customer support resources, it means a very different structure and needing to ensure you both hire in the same quality of employees up and down the escalation chain as well as adapt your organization to handle the vastly larger communication and problem resolution processes.
Noe of that is trivial and it's quite easy to take a great org and make it terrible by just adding a bunch of people.
I'm not discounting that this was an annoying ordeal for this channel to go through, but if this is so easy, why don't professional criminals go after huge channels and take them down as easily? There might be some subscriber count threshold or partner status that, once crossed, flags extra steps that mean a new violation is escalated for a closer look first?
How do you know they are not doing that already?
PeerTube is a more distributed clone of YouTube, and this site explains what it is well: https://framablog.org/2019/11/12/peertube-has-worked-twice-a....
Technology used includes a HLS video player, and WebTorrent. Like Mastodon it also uses the ActivityPub protocol.
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…
No, they are not! They are treating this as another big data problem, ignoring the harm it causes.
What they SHOULD do is to held the accuser responsible. To make complaints you should have a verified account and if you make wrongful claims you should foot the bill.
Not rocket science really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Instead of actually trying to create the best customer service I've worked in high volume customer services. It's not easy for the agents doing the work or the companies operating them. I've worked in multiple call centers dealing with calls and tickets. I've worked in companies in which I dealt with mobile phone bill queries and hardware issues right up to Cisco networking problems and then eventually enterprise g…
I don't think your point passes a back of the envelope math test. Right now Google makes the second most profit per employee of any large enterprise on earth: $269,000 in profit, annually, per employee. I know of other- successful!- companies that make less money per employee, because they hire people to do customer support. To start your argument, I think you have to explain why Google can not hire more CSRs, even t…
Apparently temporary works and contractors make up around 54% of Google's workforce. https://www.vox.com/2019/4/4/18293900/google-contractors-ben...