141–150 of 362 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, Bitcoin is not anonymous. https://www.elliptic.co/our-thinking/bitcoin-transactions-mo...
Transmission of BTC between wallets is traceable -- if the wallet is tied to a person's real name. Transmission of wallets between people is not traceable.
2) Bitcoin being useless, one still has to sell it for fiat where anonymity usually ends
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comb through public support forums, do public asks for reports of inappropriate moderation outcomes, find someone with significant enough financial losses to justify a lawsuit and use the legal discovery process to get internal stats or ask Google's representative on the stand, ask your state or national representative to support legislation requiring publishing of such statistics... there are a few ideas. All of the…
Ok, so the answer is: no. This information isn't publicly available or easily accessible.
It seems an obvious solution would be to incorporate historical data into future decisions on whether to take down immediately vs take down after manual verification. If someone has been hit with these takedown requests over and over where the resolution was always to put it back up, what likelihood is there that future resolutions will be different? By standing by your content creators with a history of improper tak…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> HIRE SOME PEOPLE. they have huge margins, it would take very little for these companies to hire some people to review content. How many people? Youtube is probably the biggest nexus of complaints, but apps on Play and the Chrome Extension store are also up there. Consider what it would cost to manually vet all apps on Play against even the most uncontroversial malware and data abuse policy. Malicious authors are cl…
> Consider what it would cost to manually vet all apps on Play against even the most uncontroversial malware and data abuse policy I believe this is precisely what Apple does, is it not? So perhaps not as impossible as you're casting it to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only ever resolved favorably if you have enough clout. I understand there simply not being enough manpower on Earth to manually review so many cases, but the balance seems to be so heavily skewed towards automation (which still does a very piss poor job at it) that just feels like there's no human element vetting the final decision at all, and that's the approach which so many people have gripes about, rightfull…
>I understand there simply not being enough manpower on Earth to manually review so many cases It's an unpopular opinion, but perhaps there doesn't need to be so many videos online for public viewing. I don't think its much to ask for a real human to review every video before allowing it to be made public. The posting person could perhaps pay a small fee for the video to be reviewed. We could have more relaxed rules…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Youtube has locked viewers in. If a content creator leaves youtube no one consumes their content, so this isn't really an option.
If viewers would actually pay for content they like, this wouldn't be an issue. The problems are that tech companies are 1. dumping product well under cost while 2. training customers not to pay anything. At some point, people need to realize what constantly wanting things for free is costing them and the people they watch.
It's not free, we pay for the content by buying products, it's just very very indirect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only ever resolved favorably if you have enough clout. I understand there simply not being enough manpower on Earth to manually review so many cases, but the balance seems to be so heavily skewed towards automation (which still does a very piss poor job at it) that just feels like there's no human element vetting the final decision at all, and that's the approach which so many people have gripes about, rightfull…
> I understand there simply not being enough manpower on Earth to manually review so many cases This has made me wonder, 1) how many people would this really take to review appeals manually? 2) should a publisher be allowed to run a platform that they are unable to curate?
It should. If these services didn't exist people (more exactly, a fraction thereof) would be hosting the videos themselves, and we'd have even less of a curation. It would be perverse to penalize Google for attempting some moderation rather than just working as a hosting service, which is exactly why section 230 immunizes this kind of imperfect moderation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Three hundred hours of video are uploaded to Youtube every minute [0]. There's no amount of "excessive profit" that can scale humans to review it all. [0] https://merchdope.com/youtube-stats/
So about 270000 assuming they have 4 monitors each. If they hire from low cost countries from contractors. They will only have to pay 10k per headcount + additional 10k for various stuff. That's only around 5 billion. Let's just double that, 10 billion dollars. That's it. Google can easily pay it.
From google's perspective, none of these blackmail or customer support issue is an actual issue, because you, the customer, is gonna use google's services regardless. The business case for paying support personnel is non-existent. Even if you're a paying customer, the overhead of hiring more personnel is not an effective use of capital - better spent on R&D and other scalable revenue generating options.
It sucks. But that's the reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then complain about Google's monopoly, not its moderation inadequacies, and consider that creators unwilling to leave are the source of the monopoly, not necessarily its victims, especially if they're not even trying other platforms. I guess I don't like the entitlement/blame cycle where people who help create a problem complain about the consequences.
The monopoly is due to threshold of creators being on youtube. A single channel leaving would make no difference. I'd love to see a movement away from youtube, but that would require a movement with serous organization, which creators mostly aren't capable of doing.
I have seen that, particularly in history channel circles were the content get demonetized for things like saying Hitler, many of them band together and publish to youtube last or not at all and promote these other channels in their videos. I don't know if any of them will be successful, but staying on youtube simply isn't an option for them either.
I think if/when youtube falters it will be death be a thousand cuts, it won't be a single movement with organization and it won't be to something else as centralized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
IMO, Google's profit per employee isn't an indicator of Google's obligation to increase its customer service headcount. Taken to it's logical conclusion, we should let poorly-performing companies off the hook for having awful customer service. The rest of this comment is going to be somewhat critical of Google criticism and seemingly apologistic. Please assume positive intent. I agree that Google certainly could do m…
That’s not the logical conclusion, that’s the inverse.
If P (large profit per employee) then Q (should be able to spend more on customer support)...
- The converse is If Q then P (clearly not applicable in this case)
- The contrapositive is If not Q then not P (in this case, you would hope it’s true but obviously not!)
- The inverse is If not P then Not Q, which would roughly translate into if profit per employee is low then you would not expect a company to pay more for customer support.
Perhaps you could argue that the logical conclusion is that any profit just means they aren’t spending enough on their support. Funny thing is economists would argue profit demonstrates they are spending enough on keeping customers happy.
It certainly appears that they can afford to do better (although arguably they don’t break out financial results just for YouTube do they?) and we certainly want them to better.
I think the fundamental problem is that for every million dollars they pay humans to “do better” it’s like trying to move the beach with a pair of tweezers — you don’t even make a dent. No amount of money will solve the problem by trying to pay humans. They can only succeed by making the algorithm better, and that’s not a problem which scales with headcount (mythical man month)