121–130 of 276 posts
Let this be a lesson to all: intelligence does not in any way correlate with self awareness. It's likely that 'smart' people are just as likely to be unaware of their own follies or inabilities, I would argue, maybe more so as a lot of smart people tend to be 'inwardly focused' and less concerned about their direct environment. This kind of thing happens all the time among Exec. level, but normally we'd expect it fro…
"Smart" and "educated" people are the easiest to fool[0]. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbwWL5ezA4g
― C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength
Let this be a lesson to all: intelligence does not in any way correlate with self awareness. It's likely that 'smart' people are just as likely to be unaware of their own follies or inabilities, I would argue, maybe more so as a lot of smart people tend to be 'inwardly focused' and less concerned about their direct environment. This kind of thing happens all the time among Exec. level, but normally we'd expect it fro…
> but normally we'd expect it from Ford CEO, not Google types. Why? How do you see a distinction there?
Contrast Vs traditional traditional CEOs more likely to be hired on the basis of their network and charistma vs actual engineering chops?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, but I simply can't believe that "no one is particularly happy with YouTube" while so many people still use it, including the vast majority of the people who are supposedly "not particularly happy" with it. When people ask, "Why hasn't someone disrupted YouTube?" I think the more boring answer that keeps getting overlooked is that it still meets the expectations of enough users, and the dissatisfied constit…
YouTube's brand and network effects are a huge moat, in a market that is massively expensive to build a competitor in. There are only a handful of companies in the world with the available tech talent and capital to create a serious competitor and they apparently aren't interested in trying to attack that moat at this time. YouTube can absolutely be widely disliked and keep chugging along for the foreseeable future.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, but I simply can't believe that "no one is particularly happy with YouTube" while so many people still use it, including the vast majority of the people who are supposedly "not particularly happy" with it. When people ask, "Why hasn't someone disrupted YouTube?" I think the more boring answer that keeps getting overlooked is that it still meets the expectations of enough users, and the dissatisfied constit…
More troll posts... I guess people haven't seen your username enough yet to realize what your game is, so on behalf of those who haven't picked up on it: The reason YouTube has no competitor yet is because you'd need $10 billion just to get the platform off the ground - that's servers, developers, datacenters, peering agreements, etc. Very few people have $10 billion lying around, and no one is interested in tackling…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that won't work... former President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace prize but he went on to involve the United States in additional foreign wars and went ham with drone strikes.
Perfect example. He also took programs to the next level — eg first president to authorize the US to assassinate its own citizens!
Surprised he didn't win any champion of due process awards.
> How do you make sure that everybody has a voice but also feels safe?
That question was never directly answered and, frankly, I don't think there it's possible to strike that balance. Even now there are simultaneously people who complain that their voice is denied or concealed on the platform while others who complain that the platform doesn't do enough to block or steer viewers away from problematic content.
> We've always since the beginning of YouTube had community guidelines because we've realized that there's certain types of content... like some from the very beginning... we wouldn't allow adult content, hate content, dangerous content... all of those types of content could really make it that YouTube was no longer a platform that was viable for all these other voices out there.
The terms she uses to describe content ("adult", "hate", and "dangerous") are all extremely vague - purposely so that YouTube can ban or allow content seemingly however it pleases them.
And what does she even mean by those types of content could really make YouTube no longer viable for other voices? YouTube is just part of the web - a much larger platform which very much allows those types of content. That hasn't made other voices any less viable. Whether or not it should be YouTube's responsibility to silence those voices, their existence clearly does not inherently reduce the viability of other voices.
> We're always updating our policies and when content is violative of any of the policies unfortunately we need to remove it. And so we removed 9 million videos last quarter and almost all of them - over 90% - we removed with machines, which is good because it means if there's content that's violative we find that really quickly.
...
This is a "Free Expression" award, right? Am I playing the wrong video?
> We also want to protect creators like you who have built businesses with really really valuable content and make sure that we don't have a situation where advertisers pull their spend because there's some content on it that they're not comfortable with. So we want to make sure that we're protecting all the valuable creators like you.
Sure. You're protecting the creators. By demonetizing their businesses. Right.
This reads like an headline from "The Onion".
I think people here are fundamentally misunderstanding what happened here. There is a nonprofit, the "Freedom Forum Institute" that awarded this award. Only the award ceremony was sponsored by YouTube. It's common practice for nonprofits to use awards like this as an opportunity to ask for donations, and for the company associated with that person to offer to sponsor the awards ceremony. I don't see anything to indic…
This is the most Soviet thing I've heard in a while. The Ministry of Culture awards itself for upholding the Soviet principles of cultural enlightenment!
The mono-culture bubble in silicon valley is nauseating.