Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 305 posts

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#261

Post by eecc »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #250
kodablah wrote: post #38

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…

> Let's be clear, the lack of humans anywhere in the pipeline for uploaders is because they don't have to, not because it is impossible. The real problem here is that people are envisioning human interaction as something that can produce better outcomes, but the cost of that may not be economical. You can hire a generic human to look over a flagged video for 15 seconds and render a verdict, but the verdict is going t…

So true. Automation cannot infer nuance. It's ok to strike down obvious spam and troll but the but this pretense that private actors should spend their resources to cultivate a sane public space in just a broad-spectrum reflex reaction to micro-targeted disinformation. Nonsense.

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#262

Post by esrauch »

m_a_g wrote: post #4

>Anyhow, I truly believe humanity has to rollback to operating at a human scale. >Using algorithms to flag content is totally fine… problem is when humans cannot interact with humans anymore and AI gets to chose what is right and wrong. Can't agree more.

So I actually think this viewpoint vastly overestimates the ability for human reviewers to come to the right conclusion. I can tell you thats not really the case: paid trained human contractors for content moderation very commonly make far more problematic errors than "wpa2 cracking info is a bannable offense, but not this case because it's a academic research".

This is the kind of edge case that even after escalation to higher tier human contractors will often still get wrong. I don't really see how it's actually much less dystopian just to have humans in the loop with the same outcomes.

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#263

Post by kingsuper20 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #210
kingsuper20 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never'll happen. “Congress shall have power… to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” As I read it, the law should be formed to maximize progress, not to maximize value of an idea. But, a large amorphous group of citizens will never overcome a small, highly-concentrated self interested…

> I doubt you'll ever see the copyright-opening version of the NRA Corrupt influence-peddling charlatans milking the rubes? Or was there something else intended by this analogy?

Simply that the power of a highly focused group can be remarkable. Substitute 'NRA' for Big Pharma trade organization or Teachers' Union if you like.

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#264

Post by kelnos »

admax88q wrote: post #228
hervature wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Choosing to die on that hill of technicality seems like a silly choice. People say "human" but they really mean "a person who diligently considered the content, probably watched the video more than once, understood what they were watching, and possibly has a chance to debate with another human". Or, you know, a reasonable definition for "human in the loop".

It seems you're defining "human in the loop" as "Google makes what I consider to be the correct decision in this case." I believe the point that thu2111 is trying to make is that there _are_ humans in the loop, and having them is no insurance against unilateral decisions that you disagree with or even just plain stupid decisions. The point is that involving more humans in the moderation decisions at YouTube does not…

I would accept that Google will sometimes make the wrong decision, but it's unacceptable that the care given toward making that decision stops at a low-wage worker in another country spending 20 seconds on the decision.

There's a very wide chasm between "an AI decided" or "someone spent 20 seconds on it", and "we hired an expert in every possible field and they thoroughly research the facts at hand before making a decision".

The latter is obviously not feasible, but there are many options in between that will give markedly better outcomes than the status quo while not making YT moderation economically infeasible.

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#265

Post by kelnos »

thu2111 wrote: post #223
kodablah wrote: post #137

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 [...] The post literally quotes Google as saying that for the _last_ time this happened. Then the post literally states they appealed and never heard back. There is nothing concerning a human for this instance, though I suspect once the uploader reaches out (were it not for the populari…

Appealing and not hearing back doesn't mean the original decision was entirely automated, it means they ignore appeals. Plenty of people would love nothing more than to argue with Google employees all day about every decision the firm makes - just think about webmasters and SEO alone - so the fact that YouTube actually has such a process is already kind of remarkable.

You seem to be arguing that because their dispute process everywhere else is reprehensible, a slightly-less-reprehensible process should be celebrated.

It shouldn't, and we need to hold Google and others to a much higher standard here. I'm not sure how we do that, but the status quo is garbage.

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#266

Post by a1369209993 »

qayxc wrote: post #252
ylere wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it though? Let's do a very rough estimate: 500 hours of content per minute in 2019, lets say 1 reviewer can review 3 hours of video each hour (by increasing play speed/skipping etc.) and we have a global workforce in lower income countries working 3x 8 hour shifts + weekends. That's 500 60/3 3 = 30000 reviewers, at a monthly cost of $1000 that's 30000 1000 12*7/5 = $504m/year. Youtube had $15b in revenues in 2019,…

> Is it though? Yes, it is - because it's actually 2500 videos per MINUTE, not per hour, mea culpa. So your 30,000 reviewers would actually have to be at least 1.8 MILLION.

They didn't use your videos per hour/minute figure; they used hours of content per minute, so it still comes out 30'000 reviewers.

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#267

Post by vokep »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #250
kodablah wrote: post #38

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…

> Let's be clear, the lack of humans anywhere in the pipeline for uploaders is because they don't have to, not because it is impossible. The real problem here is that people are envisioning human interaction as something that can produce better outcomes, but the cost of that may not be economical. You can hire a generic human to look over a flagged video for 15 seconds and render a verdict, but the verdict is going t…

Why would youtube be trying to make a determination like that? Individuals are the arbiters of truth, not organizations. Ministries of truth are not desirable.

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#268

Post by doublejay1999 »

ehsankia wrote: post #206
doublejay1999 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answers to all your questions is no, which is precisely the point the author is trying to make. If we made the case for operating "at human scale" Youtube would be amongst first casualties. to your last point : > Anyone can upload a video and make it viewable by billions, instantly. I think we shouldn't forget how amazing this actually is. By the same reasoning, COVID-19 is similarly amazing. Opinions move on : Y…

Do you have reason to believe it can be done better than how Youtube does it? Again, there are two approach: 1. Limit who can post content You'll end up with only the powerful being able to push content, you're taking the voice away from the masses. 2. Try to gradually improve content moderation and live with the rare false-positives or false-negatives. This is the current approach, and while not perfect, I personall…

I dont think it could be done better much better than youtube aat the scale youtube does it, but i would insist they need to be plugged in to existing national media regulators and bound by the same standards- flawed as they are.

> You'll end up with only the powerful being able to push content, you're taking the voice away from the masses.

i think the algorithms already do that. the channels with the most followers have the loudest voice

>. Try to gradually improve content moderation and live with the rare false-positives or false-negatives.

its better than it was, and will likely improve but it's still drowing in shills and scammers. i think this would be rooted out by more community centric model. exactly how that looks, i dont know - but i think self policing would play a part.

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#269

Post by posguy »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #250
kodablah wrote: post #38

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…

> Let's be clear, the lack of humans anywhere in the pipeline for uploaders is because they don't have to, not because it is impossible. The real problem here is that people are envisioning human interaction as something that can produce better outcomes, but the cost of that may not be economical. You can hire a generic human to look over a flagged video for 15 seconds and render a verdict, but the verdict is going t…

What stops the YouTube reviewer from calling or emailing the CDC to render a verdict on which interpretation of their public information is accurate?

When it comes to government agencies, they are contactable (usually with a simple email). You might not get an immediate response, but a few hours to a few days later you can expect to hear back.

Re: YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability

#270

Post by [deleted] »

admax88q wrote: post #228
hervature wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Choosing to die on that hill of technicality seems like a silly choice. People say "human" but they really mean "a person who diligently considered the content, probably watched the video more than once, understood what they were watching, and possibly has a chance to debate with another human". Or, you know, a reasonable definition for "human in the loop".

It seems you're defining "human in the loop" as "Google makes what I consider to be the correct decision in this case." I believe the point that thu2111 is trying to make is that there _are_ humans in the loop, and having them is no insurance against unilateral decisions that you disagree with or even just plain stupid decisions. The point is that involving more humans in the moderation decisions at YouTube does not…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN