YouTube is Too Big To Fix Completely, Google CEO Says (cnbc.com) 177
Google CEO Sundar Pichai says YouTube is too big to completely fix the site's problems with harmful content. From a report: During a CNN interview that aired Sunday, Pichai was asked whether there will ever be enough humans to filter through and remove such content. "We've gotten much better at using a combination of machines and humans," Pichai said. "So it's one of those things, let's say we're getting it right 99% of the time, you'll still be able to find examples. Our goal is to take that to a very, very small percentage well below 1%." Pichai said Google probably can't get that to 100%. "Any large scale systems, it's tough," Pichai said. "Think about credit card systems, there's some fraud in that. ... Anything when you run at that scale, you have to think about percentages."
Re: (Score:1)
Fines would be part of the "cost" of running it. He mentioned the fraud example, so they probably already cost in fines and such.
Shut it down? Don't be silly. No more than you would ban cars, alcohol or any other thing that can harm. You regulate and fine them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Metaphor then: "We have too many transactions, so we simply can't afford to keep track of bank/debit/credit card fraud."
That's the example given in the summary. Monetary transactions do have fraud yes, and they try to police it, but sometimes they just don't or can't notice.
It's not impossible. I used to bullseye womp rats (Score:1)
Uh, uploading something doesn't mean it has to be instantly available to download 1:1. If you have a backlog because you're too popular and making too much money, you hire more eyeballs, or you throttle submissions. Solved.
People who never post anything "flagged" at all, maybe they get priority. People who post questionable content get more review. Kinda basic, but then, it usually is once you go right around the apologists/morons.
Re: (Score:1)
We were not asking them to fix it in the first place! Youtube was an amazing culture. A very nice reflection of what we were. Now it is a whitewashed boring place.
Get him under oath and let him repeat it.
Yeah that will show him! Then what? Because in the real world nothing really would happen.
They are blaming the failure of hillary clinton to actually excite people on the internet. They are not going to make the same mistake again with Biden! That is for sure. Just watch them. They will make sure t
Re:"Too big to fail" was the quasi-valid excuse... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Too costly to fix" is the actual answer that we've all surmised.
The Frankenstein Monster is out of control, but the villagers are unarmed. What will those Do No Evil BS artists do now? Laugh to the bank, that's what they'll do.
Re: (Score:2)
That couldn't be a contradictory position, could it? There's no way the CEO of a large corporation would publicly promote two contradictory ideas, or ever be illogical.
Re: (Score:2)
"Too costly to fix" is the actual answer that we've all surmised.
The Frankenstein Monster is out of control, but the villagers are unarmed. What will those Do No Evil BS artists do now? Laugh to the bank, that's what they'll do.
The cost of pretty much anything approaches infinity as "percent fixed" approaches 100. Any practical solution has to determine some percentage less than that as good enough. Pichai is correct - with billions of examples, even a tiny percentage of "problem" is still a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
The "oh gosh, it got out of our hands" shrug is bad behavior at its worst, meaning criminal. Pull the plug on the servers. They have no right to life as a business. No business should be above the law, or morality.
Percentages in this case are meaningless. If you can't control the monster you invented, then we deal with the monster by dispatching it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How silly and binary of you. Did you miss the point that creators have a responsibility not to let things get out of control? If they had funds, they'd delete the post and send the poster's info to the appropriate authorities. The DCMA is what keeps organizations from funding the policing of their sites. Some have become real cesspits of the most vile grunge available because they've not taken the responsibility to take action-- because it takes money and as a consequence, ruins their quarterly reports to
Re:"Too big to fail" was the quasi-valid excuse... (Score:4, Funny)
Nobody is even ASKING for 100%
Not rational people. But there's probably journalism/politics that do phrase questions that way. Sometimes oblivious to how they phrased it. Sometimes deliberately phrasing it that way, oblivious to how impossible the last 0.01% of things can be, or the idea of diminishing returns. Maybe they scowl at bleach labels, demanding something that kills 100%.
Re: The coming death of Web 2.0 (Score:1)
The more they get into the game of policing content the more people demand they do.
Seems simple to me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Very simple.
A heavily controlled and monitored site for kids that has limited interaction to ensure a safe environment for vulnerable ages.
And leave everything else alone and only take down illegal content. You know, act like a platform not a publisher.
You see, google doesn't have to do anything. What made YouTube good wasn't google. it was random users doing their own thing. Not corporate sanitized garbage you get on TV that was curated by shitty algorithms.
Re:Seems simple to me. (Score:5, Interesting)
What made YouTube good wasn't google. it was random users doing their own thing.
Exactly. So instead of fixing the censor, fix your definition of "harmful" instead since that appears to be the most broken thing about YT.
Pichai is right (Score:4, Funny)
Take our court systems, for example. Occasionally innocent people are convicted and executed, and we should just accept that we're not going to get it right 100% of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's the idiot that didn't understand the sarcasm inherent in the OP?
Re: (Score:1)
No. That was stupid. So much outraged, because the non-politician told the truth about what is actually done on a regular basis. Or, are you going to try to excuse Hillary paying for Russian intelligence like the rest of the leftists?
YouTube is a privately run company (Score:1)
And if you're going to argue that YouTube is so big an institution that it qualifies as gov't now fine, nationalize it and seize the assets via eminent domain (paying compensation accordingly). I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that's not something you'd support though.
Finally, if you want the gov't involved you could always do a national public access website. But that would cost tax dollars, and taxation is t
Re:YouTube is a privately run company (Score:5, Interesting)
not a legal system. For some unknown reason I felt that needed to be pointed out
You're right but it is a public forum ran by a private company. That is the private company gets to dictate whom among the public is allowed to use the services, but the offer to use the services is open to the public at large, as opposed to a membership or other limiting forms of special commerce. In turn that means there's some legal responsibility to police their content to a certain degree, that degree however gets fuzzy if we're talking about a real life brick and mortar venue and even worse since what we are really talking about is some online service where laws haven't really kept pace with virtual things.
And if you're going to argue that YouTube is so big an institution that it qualifies as gov't now fine, nationalize it and seize the assets via eminent domain
I don't think the parent is attempting to make that point. Anything too large is hard to maintain effectively. Heck, look at the randomness of Wal-Marts across the country, or look at the craziness that goes on in Amazon sometimes where products are just drop-ships or resales, or look at the internal operations between McDonald's across large franchises. Anything large is bound to have mismanagement, that's why super-uber-extreme-large companies are almost always a universally bad idea. Yet we still keep churning them out in spades, for whatever reason.
Finally, if you want the gov't involved you could always do a national public access website
You really wouldn't need that honestly. The Internet by its nature is decentralized and we've eschewed decentralized protocols for central services. However, that does not seem to be what people want really as we've had decentralized services come and go in favor of these more centralized services.
The problem with YouTube is not a single failure but a complete maelstrom of multiple forces that have brought us to where we are today. We have a government that is routinely hesitant to define bare minimums for online services on par to what Federal guidelines might be for a real-life equivalent. We have a public that vastly does not understand the consequences of uses these services that are harvesting their personal data. We have companies that are developing services that get completely out of hand and only address how out of hand it gets when called out publicly. We have a tendency to favor mergers and large companies that make competition by new entries almost unreal. All of these are brewing a storm. There's a certain level of capitalism that's good, we're in an almost unchecked wild-west out of control level of capitalism and that's going to have some repercussions. Now the only thing about those repercussions is that if we were ready for them, I probably wouldn't care, but clearly we're becoming massively unprepared for whatever fallout might come from a 1910-1920s level of monopolyism.
But that would cost tax dollars, and taxation is theft, right?
Oh good gosh, could you be any more pedantic? Are you wanting to make a point or get into a yo-mama fight?
Freedom of association goes both ways (Score:5, Interesting)
Properly regulated large companies can be fine. Economies of scale are nice. It's how I can afford a computer. If I had to go to a boutique shop for every little thing my $800 gaming PC that I cobbled together over the years would have been $5k.
That said, YouTube has plenty of competition (Facebook, Daily Motion, Gab, etc), so I'm not convinced Monopoly regulations are warranted.
As for the bit about "taxation is theft" it was me calling out the implicit right wing bias in the GP. Nevermind that YouTube bans more left wing channels and demonitizes even more. You don't hear about them because they're not nearly as big. The right have a powerful, well funded network to get their message out. The Left are just some guys trying to make Universal Healthcare and Living Wages a thing. It's tough to compete, but that doesn't stop YouTube from trying to be "fair" and bringing the hammer down hard. So yeah, I'm a little miffed. I'm tired of being called snowflake by people that get upset when they're banned for little things like miming a gun shot to a left wing politician to an audience know for extremism...
Sorry if all that comes off as harsh, but, well, it is. The world sucks. 30k people will die of treatable illness this year. You could be next, or a family member. Guys in their 30s sometimes come down with type-I diabetes. One of 'em just died rationing his insulin. So yeah, I'm a little sore about the whole thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Nevermind that YouTube bans more left wing channels and demonitizes even more
Citation required.
Re: (Score:1)
I might have an open door policy on my home but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to kick anyone out.
Not so sure about that, "no trespassing" signs are often required to assert your right; sometimes you have to wait for an eviction court process; and of course any time a citizen uses force the police get jealous are liable to arrest you on the spot
Re: (Score:2)
There is no legal theory that prevents YouTube from banning users it doesn't like.
There's actually 2, which you know of, and you're omitting and denying because you happen to love the censorship of speech of dislike (wait until they start censoring speech you like, and then try to come cry to us about it).
Just for the benefit of everyone else :
- Privately owned Public spaces.
- Liability for published content which Content platforms are immune to.
Those are 2 legal theories that could result in quite a bit of a stir up in the current "It's a private company dumb ass, except when it's a bak
Liability is covered by CDA (Score:2)
Privately Owned Public Spaces [wikipedia.org] are a zoning thing. Good luck getting a concept from meat space to carry over 1 to 1 to the net. And in most cases they exist because of agreement with real estate developers. YouTube has no such agreement with any government.
So we're right back where we started, there is no legal theory that prevents YouTube from banning users it doesn't like. Feel free to keep trying, but you're not likely to find one. This was all hashed ou
Re: (Score:2)
Privately Owned Public Spaces are a zoning thing.
And you cannot recognize how the theory of them could be applied to online "SPACES" ?
As the virtual landscape more and more mimics real world concepts and establishment, the lines blur further and further between "It's online" and "It's in the real world". Twitter, in the Donald Trump lawsuit, was claimed to be a "Public Square" for instance, and it's on that basis that the Judge said Donald Trump could not enforce blocks on his profile.
there is no legal theory that prevents YouTube from banning users it doesn't like.
Well obviously, AT&T should have no issues banning users it doesn'
Re: (Score:2)
I might have an open door policy on my home but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to kick anyone out. There is no legal theory that prevents YouTube from banning users it doesn't like.
I'm not suggesting that. You can give people an open invitation but can thereafter, once they show they're a complete ass, have them removed. Additionally, when someone enters your establishment, you have an obligation to ensure they're not cooking meth in your bathroom. That later point is what I'm getting at, not the former.
Properly regulated large companies can be fine
I'm not saying they can't, I'm not saying there are no exceptions to the standard of large companies typically have mismanagement. What I am saying is that as a company grows it be
Re: Freedom of association goes both ways (Score:2)
C'mon, my brother, stand up for what you know is right. Corporate censorship of dissenting political views from the (corporate-owned) public square is unamerican. That _right now_ they are censoring people with whom you disagree, is no excuse. Privutt pooperty is no excuse.
Do you imagine Chief Nazi Sundar Pichai has any more love for pro-labor speech than he has for the speech of those he is currently oppressing? Remember that old "First they came for..." poem? Yeah, that.
Stand up for freedom of speech. S
Re: (Score:2)
"There is no legal theory that prevents YouTube from banning users it doesn't like." This argument comes up a lot and is completely untrue. The SUPREME COURT has ruled that social media is a public square [qz.com].
While you were linking that article, did you happen to notice that it says that states can't broadly limit access to social media? That doesn't say anything a-tall about whether a social media company can limit access to its services.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because a video streaming site and the court system are of equal importance...
Re:Pichai is right (Score:4, Informative)
Of course the court system has an appeals process to deal with mistakes. YouTube often does not allow appeals, or simply refuses to get involved as is the case with bogus copyright claims/strikes.
YouTube would be massively improved if it just had a proper appeals system, with consequences for outfits that get repeatedly ruled against on appeal.
Re: Google breaks YouTube and keeps it broken (Score:2)
Google/Alphabet is a plague on free society.
Time for President Trump to dust off Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting stick...
General Motors: Too Big to Fail . . . (Score:2)
OK, bail it out . . . but break it up, so it doesn't happen again.
YouTube? Too big to fix? Break it up and fix the smaller parts, before we need to bail it out.
Re: (Score:3)
Well if you're gonna break up GM, you're gonna have to break up Toyota, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Suzuki, Volvo, and so-on as well since pretty much every auto company got bailouts. That could be very interesting.
Re: (Score:3)
Well if you're gonna break up GM, you're gonna have to break up Toyota, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Suzuki, Volvo, and so-on as well since pretty much every auto company got bailouts.
Toyota is Japanese . . . that's Japan's Problem.
Ford has not gotten a bailout yet . . . although, they did get "loans".
Chrysler is Italian . . . that's Italy's problem.
Honda, Suzuki . . . Japanese.
Volvo . . . Chinese.
Re: (Score:2)
Toyota USA got a bailout. Ford got a bailout under a different bailout fund. Chrysler got a bailout from the US government(and Canadian). Honda and Suzuki both got bailouts under the same fund that Ford got. Volvo got European and US bailouts. Boy it's like the media just doesn't report on things like this...
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in the last round . . . but it the next round it will be different . . .
The US taxpayers are not going to stand for supporting Chrysler, and Italian company. And I can't believe that they will tolerate supporting Japanese car makers.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree. Watch the rockers on deutsche bank, cause they have massive low-value and unfunded liability issues right now, the merger with another bank fell apart about a month back. And they're now trying to pare down 'human heavy' operations all over the world to try and salvage some capital. Doesn't have a touch on the 2.2T in unfunded liabilities that Chinese banks(on Chinese internal capital) have hit up in just the last 10 months though, but it's pretty bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch the rockers on deutsche bank, cause they have massive low-value and unfunded liability issues right now, the merger with another bank fell apart about a month back.
I am a US citizen, and grew up there, although, I now live in Germany. My father was from Calgary, my mother from Toronto. Your irrelevant comment about the Deutsche Bank is like someone saying:
"That cracker is racist!"
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you don't care to watch a domino in place, waiting to fall that's your problem. Me? I've already segregated my liabilities to avoid any fallout.
Re: (Score:2)
Ford still hasn't paid back all those loans, either. But I disagree with your assessment of what is whose problem. They are the problem of whoever has the jobs. That may be the cleverest part of FCA. There's more than one country that gets hurt if it goes under, so there's more than one government that can be suckered out of cash.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it is and is not too big to fix. The reality controlling it all is a mess and best left to the public and the courts, that is what the courts are for.
So you break it into two different segments, different web sites, one open and wild and the other controlled and sedate, one parents can send their children too.
So reincarnate Google Video and push the wild wild west out there and turn Youtube into the polite playground, you know basically advertising videos you interrupt with advertising because that i
Re: General Motors: Too Big to Fail . . . (Score:2)
"why kind of arse hole would you have to be, apparently the Google kind"
I believe the preferred term is "Googledouche".
Break it up ... (Score:2)
... into smaller units. That's where the monopoly movement is headed anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Fermenting the platform ...No, fermentation is what created your whine.
... who doesn't like one site to view everything."
I don't. That's why I #deletefacebook. For instance, anyone who gets their news from Facebook is naive. There are news sites all over the goddam Internet.
Break it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I heard YouTube loses money year over year. Google just keeps it afloat because it's a valuable tool to have at their disposal.
Skynet wants video.
That's funny... (Score:1)
Re:Mis-id'd (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that Google is deciding what's harmful.
So, who should? Not a rhetorical question.
The nature of anonymous digital interaction being what it is, clearly "just let anyone upload anything (that doesn't break a law)" isn't a viable option. Since YouTube is a commercial platform (it's not really a "town square"... it's private property), one viable option is "allow only content that advertisers like", since those are the only videos which generate revenue. That would lead to extensive restrictions since most companies are very risk-averse (far more than Google is).
Mark Zuckerberg called on government to define the allowable parameters. But not only does that seem like a bad idea on its face, it also seems extremely unlikely that any government-provided rules could pass first amendment muster... and it would still be on the platform providers to do the actual enforcement, which raises its own legal and moral questions.
This is a very tough question. If you think you have an answer, I'd like to hear it. Please, though, think about all the potential and likely consequences of what you'd propose.
Re:Mis-id'd (Score:4, Interesting)
One way to handle it would be to facilitate third-party lists of approved content. That lets Google off the hook. They keep doing what they're doing, and people who can handle seeing some "objectionable" content slip through occasionally can keep doing what they're doing. Anyone else could apply some filter from some third party. I'd like to see their terms give them no more than a percentage of the sale price of such filters... all the way down to 0 for 0. Obviously, anyone can already curate a list of whoever-friendly videos on youtube, but it would be nice if you could get the filters without having to go to a third party site. And whether you're going to hide some videos, or whitelist the ones you want to see and/or the sources you want to see videos from, it's advantageous for the list to be in google's possession anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd go further and make the most-subscribed list the 'default' list you see without signing in or choosing one. Want a list that's full of porn? Sure thing. Want an echo-chamber thought-bubble list that has no wrongthink? Ok. Make the lists a subdomain, like listname.youtube.com, to make it easy to get to and bookmark.
It's unreasonable to expect individuals to create conclusive white/blacklists, so I think lists should themselves be able to include other lists. So, a web could be created of a group of peopl
Re: (Score:2)
One way to handle it would be to facilitate third-party lists of approved content.
While that might be a nice feature, I don't think it would let Google off the hook, at all. People would still complain to their elected officials about content that's available, and Google would still have to make decisions about what videos to show ads on.
Re: (Score:2)
Google would still have to make decisions about what videos to show ads on.
Google and their advertisers, you mean. Google couldn't give half a rat's flea-bitten ass what the ads are attached to, but the advertisers do, so they pretend like they do too. Then they do as the money tells them. That's no excuse, but at least it's straightforward, if not honest. When someone gets demonetized or deplatformed, we know it's because the dead presidents (&c) said so.
Re: (Score:2)
Google would still have to make decisions about what videos to show ads on.
Google and their advertisers, you mean. Google couldn't give half a rat's flea-bitten ass what the ads are attached to, but the advertisers do, so they pretend like they do too. Then they do as the money tells them. That's no excuse, but at least it's straightforward, if not honest. When someone gets demonetized or deplatformed, we know it's because the dead presidents (&c) said so.
I think it's a little more complicated than that, because the advertisers don't review every individual video. They may express some general preferences to Google, and in rare cases may complain about specific channels, but they largely require Google to make the decisions for them... with the implied threat that if Google makes bad choices the advertisers will pull or reduce their advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Mis-id'd (Score:2)
"it's not really a "town square"... it's private property"
Get ready, Google nazis. President Trump is dusting off Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting stick...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's been a number of cases where a "town square" has been ruled to still be one even if it's privately owned.
Cite? The details matter.
So um, what does Regressive Left mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
YouTube is not the public square. Literally. They're a private company. It's their site, and they can do with as they please.
If you want a public square build and fund one. Create a National Public Access. Remember Public Access? Do that. Then you can have a place to put video that you can't be banned from unless the content is illegal. That would be a real public square.
From that phrase "Regressive Left" I can infer your pretty far right, maybe "alt-right". Don't know. I've complained about this before, but it's funny how when the right wing feel put upon they're suddenly all about gov't regulation.
What's that phrase? Gov't small enough to drown in a bathtub. Near as I can tell you want just enough gov't to do what you want and no so much that anything might happen you don't like.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
> It's their site, and they can do with as they please.
Not if they want to be a common carrier. If they do what they please, they should be liable for everything on their platform.
> If you want a public square build and fund one.
I don't have billions of dollars and access to hundreds of thousands of hours of labor.
> I can infer your pretty far right, maybe "alt-right".
Of course you can, but you'd be wrong. I'm on the left. I see the big issues of our time as wealth
Congrats, you found a wikipedia article (Score:2)
Let me be clear, there is no "Regressive Left". The phrase is a classic example of misdirect on the part of the right. It is literally the political equivalent of "I know you are but what am I". Part of the broader Gish Gallop [wikipedia.org] this is the broader right wing narrative (see, I can link Wikipedia too).
And by "fund one" I mean have the government fund one with
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube is not a common carrier. The vast majority of private entities, including social media companies, never were common carriers.
The Communications Decency Act [eff.org] says that you cannot treat a private entity on the internet (an "information service provider") as if they were the speaker of information that is submitted and displayed entirely at the direction of a user (an "information
Mod Parent up (Score:2)
Re: So um, what does Regressive Left mean? (Score:2)
The tedious right/left false dichotomy, pushed so hard by oligarch-controlled media outlets, does nothing but stultify public discussion and foster cognitive dissonance.
The real issues today include pro/anti-labor, pro/anti-freedom of speech, pro/anti-fair trade, pro/anti-imperial military adventures, pro/anti-concentration of wealth. These real material issues cross obsolete ideological and party lines.
Re:Mis-id'd (Score:4, Insightful)
YouTube is the new town square
This isn't true at all. YouTube is an advertisement supported part of a the internet. The advertisers do not want their ads to run on (and therefore support) certain videos. As private entities advertisers are in no way obligated to financially support anything they do not wish to support nor should they be.
TL;DR: YouTube needs money to run and nobody is entitled to that money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> Whose law
That's tricky, because they're international, I'm not sure, but the US has a number of useful [exceptions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions) - that's a good place to start. IANAL.
> Should Youtube wait to be told specific content is illegal, use hashes of previous uploaded content that was banned, etc?
No, they should filter what they can automatically (see exceptions above), and there should be a decent disputation process, because they'll get it wrong somet
Re: (Score:2)
We're not afraid to call you guys out as bad people.
That's very courageous of you, AC.
Not at all too big to fix (Score:5, Insightful)
Very simple, allow anything and only take items down when you receive legal requests to do so, anyone that makes repeated invalid legal requests gets shunted to a team that carefully reviews such requests over the course of several weeks, erring on the side of giving any ad money to the video creators.
If it's just people complaining, who cares?
Re:Not at all too big to fix (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be trivial to circumvent any sort of repeated takedown request limits: Just crowdsource them. There are enough aggressive lefties in the country to kill every right-leaning channel, and enough evangelical Christians to kill every left-leaning channel. For any sort of content that isn't of the most mainstream, inoffensive, milquetoast variety, it'd be easy to find/build a group to shut it down.
And even without crowdsourcing the complaints, you could always just create tons of fake accounts (yes, Google tries to make that hard, but it isn't), generate enough fake activity on them to make them look legit, then send the complaints through them.
No... any functional system is going to have to actually evaluate the content against some sort of rules. Relying only on user complaints won't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Even when there are rules it tends to go badly wrong. For example, they seem to have a "no videos promoting Nazism", but material for historians/teachers and videos criticising/exposing Nazis get taken down because the algorithm can't distinguish and the human reviewers, when you can get one, are too rushed to really look at the context.
The only solution is to employ more people, but Google wants to use algorithms because they are cheaper and scale.
Re: (Score:2)
The only solution is to employ more people, but Google wants to use algorithms because they are cheaper and scale.
Employing more people might help, to a degree, but it's never going to be "the solution". Even ignoring the fact that people are inconsistent and make mistakes, the volume is just too large. 500 hours per minute, and rising. To the degree the problem can be addressed algorithms will have to be the primary tool.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need people to review everything, just enough to review appeals.
I don't know how sustainable it is. It may be the case that once they start booting off some of the biggest abusers of copyright strikes the workload may fall, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very simple, allow anything and only take items down when you receive legal requests to do so,
If it's just people complaining, who cares?
YouTube isn't a free service, it's ad supported. If advertisers decide to pull out because they don't like what YouTube allows on their platform then YouTube will shut down because it doesn't make money.
YouTube is a for-profit business and refusing to acknowledge that makes your argument disingenuous.
Re: (Score:1)
They still act like ass holes.
Ignoring emails / support.
Shutting down whole channels, instead of individual videos.
Demon-itizing stuff willy nilly, instead of asking first, deciding later, then post retro-actively taking funds, they just auto cut it and destroy the realtime moment.
Re: (Score:3)
If advertisers decide to pull out because they don't like what YouTube allows on their platform
Youtube could add tools so that advertisers can make their own decisions as to which videos to support.
And there you have it. (Score:1)
Anything when you run at that scale, you have to think about percentages.
Anyone who thinks this way only does so when it's to their favor and/or they don't actually care; otherwise there's a scorched-Earth effort to fix it.
Re:And there you have it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything when you run at that scale, you have to think about percentages.
Anyone who thinks this way only does so when it's to their favor and/or they don't actually care; otherwise there's a scorched-Earth effort to fix it.
Or they're a realistic, reasonable person who recognizes that the scorched-Earth approach is unacceptable and that any realistic approach has to walk a fine line and will make errors both ways.
Break it up! (Score:2)
They could fix it, they don't want to. (Score:2)
Same as when Ford wouldn't fix a lethal flaw in their car because it was cheaper to settle wrongful death lawsuits than fix a million cars. In America, the number on
Re: (Score:2)
Charge the posters a large bounty which is refunded if their video is acceptable. The money made from th
That would mean the obvious answer (Score:2)
would be to break YouTube up, so that the pieces are small enought to fix.
It's not too big ... (Score:1)
Yes, a small number of people are going to see a small amount of *original* content that they should not have. You can't stop objectionable content (like the live screening of a mass murder) from going up in the first place. But you can stop it from reappearing via re-posting. You can likewise ban those that consume such content for any longer than it takes to realize what it is and close it off.
You do it by movin
Small Steps (Score:2)
Can they at lease fix the lack of a down-vote button on comments?
Message To our Big Partners (Score:2)
We're constantly looking who can handle censorship with us. It would be interesting for you because you can insert your own agenda.
Also there's an awful lot of garbage out there and we clean up constantly. This allows us to handle you requests to remove content without being too conspicuous, and if you have a good narrative we can even scale it up. Just good business.
By "fix" they mean censor incorrect thoughts (Score:2)
Anything to the right of Stalin is considered politically incorrect and must be censored.They are also censoring vegans. Apparently vegan content is not always advertiser friendly.
All of the following have been, in some way, censored from social media. None of these have expressed bigotry, or incited violence.
Tim Pool
Black Pigeon Speaks
Project Veritas
Julian Assange
Steven Crowder
Pat Condell
Paul Joeseph Watson
Mark Dice
Laura Loomer
PragerU
Milo Yiannopoulous
James Woods
Roger Stone
Diamond & Silk
Tommy Robinison
Split it (Score:1)