Hacker News Reader

Comment by big_chungus | Hacker News Reader

> doing this really changes the economics of the platform

Not to mention that moderating this kind of stuff can seriously mess you up: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/19/18681845/facebook-moderat...

You end up looking at not just mean words but CP, seriously gory stuff, fringe sexual deviancy, and more. Do we really want to do this to moderators?

View on HN

Not to mention that people are biased and cannot be trusted to moderate ethically.

Yeah it seems the best solutions simply involve users flagging content themselves and being able to see what other people have reported regarding other content

Yep. No chance that brigading will result. Also, how good are kids at evaluating what other people have reported?

Hackernews literally operates on this premise as well. Flagging is a very common feature. Crowdsourcing this is actually a very effective tactic.

Also, you'd be surprised how smart kids are if you give them the chance, have the right UI, etc.

I'm actually surprised the HN community seems to look down on crowdsourcing these efforts, kinda humorous.

No, Hacker News has a very different demographic than most other sites. I'm not saying flagging isn't a viable model, but it's also not reasonable to pretend it's going to work as well.

Whereas an algorithm can be trusted to moderate ethically?

This is why civilized countries have developed rule of law, including arguments and rebuttals, overseen by an impartial arbiter.

Yes, that is costly. But it is the accepted solution we have as a society, and it's time "Big Tech" starts accepting rule of law.

> it's time "Big Tech" starts accepting rule of law.

Which laws? I will acknowledge they are gaming the system somewhat by claiming to be an impartial platform (thereby gaining copyright protections) while removing what they find distasteful (but not illegal, so moderation based on opinion). However, it sounds like you believe removing videos that are not illegal in and of themselves is itself illegal. We don't have a law prohibiting that, so I'm not sure to what you are referring. Protecting speech also means protecting the right not to speak.

I'm not referring to "gaming the system", I'm referring to the refusal to hand over appeals to an independent third party, or in some cases flatly refusing appeals. The contentid, moderation and banning decisions should be subject to public scrutiny, they shouldn't be the unassailable result of a backroom process.

it sounds like you believe removing videos that are not illegal in and of themselves is itself illegal.

It's not even on my radar. I'm concerned with the transparency and consistency of the process, not the outcome of individual decisions.

That really isn't rule of law then. While a transparent system would be nice it has about as much to do with rule of law as people playing catch with a glove and baseball instead of a formal game does.

There's nothing in the rule of law that says platforms need to be places with arguments and rebuttals overseen by an arbiter. There's nothing against the law about having a platform filled with petulant children. For the most part, the only things against the law are illegal content (CSE, etc.) and credible and specific threats. Plus maybe some niche cases like providing aid to terrorist groups, distributing confidential documents, and the like.

Yes, tech companies should accept the rule of law. But people need to accept that the rule of law does not preclude running a site full of angry, bigoted idiots with no productive commentary.

If YouTube can't protect its users, and the content people are posting is too distressing even for moderators, maybe YouTube shouldn't exist?

Great solution that is not at all impractical in any way.

The obvious solution is to restrict who can use YouTube in some way that anti-correlates with posting awful stuff.

I don't know specifically, but there must be something.

Require verified ID for every uploader. Charge a token amount say $1 for every upload. Only accept uploads from countries with law enforcement that handles bad content and make it clear that law enforcement will be knocking on your door if you upload anything bad. Extend this to commenters.

This is just not a difficult problem, YouTube just doesn’t want to solve it

So not accepting content from the United States then? Bad content != illegal.

If they started with that YouTube wouldn't have gotten off the ground as people wouldn't go with the "unilaterally acts like they are being controlled by the Chinese Government" service.

Isn't a more reasonable solution that the users select content that they are comfortable with, or just leave the platform altogether? YouTube is mine and hundreds of millions of people's favorite site on the internet. If I see content I don't like, I go to other content.

The users don't select content. The recommender algorithm does, and then it autoplays it.

If you really don't like it, don't go on the site. I don't go on almost every site there is. Do you think it is a morally defensible position that your sensibilities be foisted upon other people in such an extreme fashion that you would deny them access to a platform altogether? Don't you think it's at least worth exploring something akin to subreddits, where communities can be moderated to the tastes of the specific tolerances that represent the group?

If you don't like YouTube demonetizing videos, don't upload your videos to the site then. Personally I don't have a problem with people discussing or making videos of whatever they want to.

I don't like the fact that YouTube with the recommender and Autoplay is stochastic mind control. It's programmed to make people watch loads of YouTube, and the mechanism that it has discovered to do that is to nudge people to obsess over fringe things, causing them to watch videos about these things for hours per day.

Did you mean to suggest that I have a problem with YouTube demonetizing? If it bothered me enough so as to make the content I like inaccessible, leaving the site is exactly what I would do. That doesn't mean I think they shouldn't exist, or be able to do what they'd like.

What if you want to post videos and interact with a community, but every time you do you get brigaded by hundreds of harassers?

What if the filters intended to prevent hate speech end up harming the targets of that hate speech instead?

What if YouTube's algorithms push conspiracy theories and manifestos of domestic terrorists into people's feeds?

These are not "deal with it or leave" issues; these are existential crises that we must hold platforms accountable to solving.

If you mean legally, I disagree. If you mean that you boycott it, then that's obviously fine.

Listen. I love YouTube, other people love YouTube. For some reason, the people who don't love YouTube insist on asking YouTube go go away. Just go post your videos on YetAnotherTube where you manually run video review and all that shit.

Having to ask permission to exist? There are so many things wrong with that notion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com