91–100 of 305 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if... instead of YouTube you'd have several intereset based sites which could actually handle their moderation and workload instead of being a giant uncaring behemoth?
Who pays for the moderators? You still need a lot of manpower if you don't want algorithms, regardless of whether you have one Youtube or a thousand SpecialInterestTube.
YouTube was fine before Google.
Stop centralising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tech is very special in a way where they can get away with claiming that quite a lot is not possible at their scale. Imagine this for other industries. "We cannot do quality control before sending products out. We make too much stuff." "We don't check all tickets for the venue. Too many people." "Cleaning the entire building is not possible. It's too much space."
Very much so. Tech companies have a way of confusing "this is difficult" with "this is impossible," or "this is impossible" with "this isn't free," or "this is impossible" with "we don't want to."
Google is a private company. It's fully within their rights to remove any video they don't like, for whatever reason. It comes with the territory if we want Google to be able to censor hate speech and misinformation. You can always use a competing site, or build your own.
Maybe it's time for a public company-independent complains-platform where all companies are obliged by law to respond. Each complaint of course is hidden behind some anti-bot captcha/protection so that the companies themselve can't use AI to answer your complaints.
That's basically what the author suggests when they say: > Anyhow, I truly believe humanity has to rollback to operating at a human scale. It's impossible to operate a complaints-platform on a global scale if it's run by humans. According to GMI [0], 500 hours of content are uploaded every minute. Given an average video duration of about 12 minutes [1], that would be 2500 videos per hour. That's just too much to manu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the argument is framed as wanting a human during take down dispute, not pre-approval. There's no need to treat this as an absolute. Why are human contact and reasonable expediency considered mutually exclusive? There is a lot of room in the middle. Can allow human dispute resolution for non-free accounts (i.e. paid or earning). Can limit upload frequency site wide while dispute/abuse queues are backed up (kno…
What's with the assumption here that there aren't humans involved in this decision? The linked post literally quotes Google saying: "Hi Sun Knudsen, Our team has reviewed your content, and, unfortunately, we think it violates our harmful and dangerous policy." Google has always had humans in the loop. Not for every decision but certainly the more impactful ones that affect user generated content. When I worked there,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if... instead of YouTube you'd have several intereset based sites which could actually handle their moderation and workload instead of being a giant uncaring behemoth?
>What if... instead of YouTube you'd have several intereset based sites which could actually handle their moderation and workload instead of being a giant uncaring behemoth? What if... the average viewer was willing to pay for video content instead of requiring a free, unprofitable service run as a "Free add-on" to an Ad Empire? Youtube may finally be profitable in the past few years but the first 90% of its existenc…
If you don't like youtube's free service you can get your money back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tech is very special in a way where they can get away with claiming that quite a lot is not possible at their scale. Imagine this for other industries. "We cannot do quality control before sending products out. We make too much stuff." "We don't check all tickets for the venue. Too many people." "Cleaning the entire building is not possible. It's too much space."
Very much so. Tech companies have a way of confusing "this is difficult" with "this is impossible," or "this is impossible" with "this isn't free," or "this is impossible" with "we don't want to."
> I am a privacy and security researcher and content creator on YouTube and PeerTube. > I am no longer able to post content for a week. Honestly, they had it coming. While "regular people" can be understood to use overtly shitty platforms like youtube, somebody who is a security and privacy researcher has no excuse. They should just avoid platforms with such callously hostile policies. Moreso when there are plenty of…
If you're interested in reaching out the mainstream public to increase its exposure to a topic you care about, there's no way around YouTube and the like It's obviously and evidently not about uploading videos, but rather to build and reach a community Also, it's wrong to accept that these platforms have this kind of influence and we should just avoid them. They're part of the social fabric of our time, and it's our…
Is this true? There's almost no discoverability on YouTube imo. You could just push people towards your privately hosted platforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's with the assumption here that there aren't humans involved in this decision? The linked post literally quotes Google saying: "Hi Sun Knudsen, Our team has reviewed your content, and, unfortunately, we think it violates our harmful and dangerous policy." Google has always had humans in the loop. Not for every decision but certainly the more impactful ones that affect user generated content. When I worked there,…
"Our team" is quite often a lie. Why do you assume that a human was involved? Especially when it comes to Google, who notoriously skimps on human support staff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the examples you provide have to do with tangible, physical things. Tech is in some sense special because we're dealing with intangibles. It costs a bad actor next to nothing to upload the same video with harmful content to YouTube a thousand times, a million times even. And YouTube has to deal with all of this. That's why they still use physical ballots in most elections: as soon as you're dealing with physical…
But a bad actor can only do so much if manual reviews are involved. If they’re a completely new account because their previous accounts have been banned, accessing on a new device because their previous Alphabet-surveilled fingerprint had been banned, or on a VPN because their IP has been banned, YouTube could just implement manual review which would slow such a bad actor down. And if the intent is to clog up the man…