First, there's some great information in this comment. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. However, we're on very different wavelengths and having conversations about two very different things.
> My goal is to try to inject some awareness or concept of scale and accuracy being demanded. You've had the opportunity to do so, you've neglected that option, instead doubling down on the emotive argument.
You're doing so by highjacking a thread that is unrelated to your end goal. I've neglected nothing, because the point I was trying to make is unrelated. You seem to believe that all exploration of the problem (someone loses access to their account due to bad algorithms taking enforcement actions) must be looked at through the lens of how hard the problem is to solve, or the discussion isn't worth having.
It's fine to raise awareness about the implications of scale and accuracy, and that's an interesting topic to examine, but you've gone a few steps too far and seem to believe that one must look at the user impact through this lens, or they shouldn't look at all.
Treat the problem of moderation as a black box for a moment:
1) Content goes in, moderated content comes out with some error rate
2) Based on the moderation result, some action is taken against the content and potentially the user
3) Due to the inherent error rate, incorrect actions will be taken against some content/users
And assume for a moment that the error rate cannot be improved; it's still possible to have a meaningful conversation about #2 and #3 without delving into the seeming impossibility of changing the error rate in #1.
There are myriad angles to explore ranging from: how to best run a manual review program, to how to improve enforcement actions so they have less impact on legitimate users, to improving the appeals process to ensure it doesn't take a HN front page article to get something done.
Someone could choose not to even attempt improving the error rate, or discover that there are diminishing returns to lowering the error rate at some point. These are tangentially related, but still technically orthogonal to improving the enforcement/appeals process.
Of course it's still completely valid to examine #1 directly! There's plenty to explore: reducing false positive rates in algorithms, optimizing the manual review process, etc. But it's silly to cast aspersions on the basis that someone chose to focus on the customer facing problem without acknowledging how hard it is to fix that problem.
It's just as reasonable to talk about how dangerous "self driving" vehicles are today. Of course it's a monumentally difficult problem to solve. But we still need to have meaningful outcome-focused conversations about these cars despite those complexities.
> You might also want to think about your own actions, and those of formal and informal institutions in which you believe and/or rely
I do often think about such things, but today's discussion is about a common issue plaguing the YouTube content ecosystem. There are appropriate places and threads to discuss those topics.
I'm mostly aligned with what you're saying, and do understand how difficult these problems are to solve. I take issue with the idea that folks are somehow involved in some kind of dereliction of duty or low value discussion for not injecting sympathy/awe at how difficult the problem is to solve.