93-year-old YouTuber back in business after being kicked off platform

Post by some_random » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 3:15 PM UTC

sbarre wrote: post #18

ryandrake wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, an entire channel was shut down (with no opportunity for appeal) on account of a single instance of someone zoom-bombing a live stream with pornography. Presumably the decision was entirely automated and there was no human in the loop. It doesn't matter how many users you have. This "solution" seems like swatting a fly with a nuclear weapon. Why not just take down the offending video until the user take…

Yeah it feels like there should be an escalating series of consequences for infractions.. It should have been pretty straightforward to establish a pattern (or lack of) around whether this was an intentionally abusive channel or a first-time offence. But of course this costs money and takes time to build.

Post by sbarre » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 3:18 PM UTC

gooosle wrote: post #30

qmarchi wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the biggest things for events like this are: - Regulatory Restrictions, many jurisdictions have limit on how to treat accounts like this - Repeat behavior from others that have breached this segment of the ToS. A good automation would be integrating something like what they already have for Music Copyright, where you can automatically trim the segments around the conflicting content.

You keep alluding to these regulatory restrictions which supposedly force this kind of behavior from Google - please go ahead and tell us what those are.

Post by lolinder » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 3:20 PM UTC

taormina wrote: post #28

lolinder wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This would cut into margins, but maybe it is not possible to run hyper scale companies only managed by a couple of engineers. It wouldn't cut into margins, it would make YouTube wildly unprofitable, with no viable path to monetization that would ever pay for the support burden. I realize that some on HN—it sounds like you included—are perfectly happy to argue that if a company can't provide human customer support t…

That is absolutely hilarious. There is definitely a middle ground between today’s “spend $0 on live human support” and “spend X% of YT revenue on the support a platform like YT demands”. There exists an X% where they are plenty profitable. It’s a video hosting platform subsidized by the largest ad network in the world.

Post by some_random » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 3:22 PM UTC

levkk wrote: post #11

qmarchi wrote: post #6

Disclaimer: Former Technical Solutions Engineer for GCP, aka Support for Customers. Also Former Engineer on YouTube Caching. To get it out of the way, I do not agree that it should've taken a journalist to get involved to have this situation solved. However, I'd like to prompt Hacker News with how would you handle receiving support requests from a product that has >2.7B users. Almost all of which are non-directly rev…

Reddit works just fine. Where there is a will, there is a way. I do believe (without proof) that incentives for Google are misaligned here.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 04, 2024, 3:23 PM UTC

qmarchi wrote: post #12

gooosle wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You start by not banning people for nothing.

Except for that you risk breaking laws in several jurisdictions if you don't. And you can't fall back to "manual" enforcement think of the massive capital of human resources you'd have to invest in to make it keep up with the upload rate of YouTube.