> You're implicitly making the assumption that an algorithm is unbiased and less likely to be fallible - and unlikely to be susceptible to bias or manipulation (at least, compared to a human). There is a considerable amount of academic and popular literature showing that these assumptions are false, at least at a technical level.
No, I'm arguing that algorithms are transparent, which means that they can be adjusted.
> The problem of vetting YouTube videos isn't necessarily something that can be solved by an algorithm, at the end of the day. Lots of the simple cases, sure - but such an algorithm won't work on even the most moderately challenging content.
of course they would here:
while (!decision_pass_the_spot_check()) { tweak_algorithm() }
> deciding whether a video is appropriate or not for monetisation is something that requires an explicit understanding of the social and cultural context which the video is going to be viewed in - which is both highly subjective and difficult to express in an algorithm.
Certain cultures think it is acceptable to stone women. In their societal context it is OK. We do not, however, care that it is OK in their societal context. So we make sure that in our algorithm stoning women ==> demonetized. Now we move onto the next problem. Did someone flag a video that we processed that had women stoned that was not demonetized? We open a ticket with the people responsible for that model, with the video that was not demonetized and have them figure out why it did not happen.
That's how you solve a complex problem. You break them into simpler ones and when you see an issue you address it. Claiming that the problem is just too complex for algorithms is avoidance.