They have so many years and resources to create moderation robots but it keeps happening over and over again. At this point people are loosing lives because of poor YT decisions.
I'm not sure YouTube is entirely to blame here. Adults should have some discernment about their sources of information.
That said, if YouTube is curating the videos in a way that suppresses important safety information, I consider them to bear significant responsibility. (No idea if the legal systems would agree.)
Not to necessarily disagree, but it’s a learned skill, a skill that some 65% of the population simply doesn’t have.
And a soft one, nobody is asking people to fight a bear with bare hands or something. Just do not do what an average Joe terms you too.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/259477/hours-of-video-up...
> 500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute.
This is why Section 230 needs a revision IMO. There is zero incentive for anybody to moderate properly.
If social media is forced to human moderate 100% of their content, they will all cease to exist financially.
If I woke up next day and we had laws that made automated content platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok impossible as business models then it would be no great loss for me. I see zero issues standing in the way of human moderated replacements.
Personally, I use YouTube and Instagram similarly to how I use Reddit: I heavily curare who I follow/subscribe to anyway. I get a lot more enjoyment out of seeing new videos by people I’ve followed for years who don’t post very often than I do from some recommendation to a viral clickbait video.
So far all the responses to me have revolved around "well I don't care about it, so ban it"
Not a great argument. There is plenty of stuff you no doubt enjoy (like your hobby forums) that I don't care about. Should I advocate for banning them?
To that I say yes.
Human beings function best in small communities where light moderation, strong norms, and reputation are allowed to develop. These social media giants are trying to replace what has worked for millennia with unaccountable, automated, authoritarian systems. Is it any wonder that pathological behaviour would predominate?
While I understand the good that YouTube brings, it has such a huge negative side that I wouldn't miss it if it were gone.
to use dreaded food analogy - same thing with food safety, if restaurant isn't up to the standards they get closed down.
I used to admin a fan-site for EA Games with ~30,000 users and 2 volunteer mods(friends). Didn't seem all that difficult.
You don't have to get everything either. People just need it to feel fair and the bad actors just need to feel some pressure. A lot of it ends up handling itself.
There's no way to manually (using people) to moderate this.... but it should be easier to report bad videos and have people just look at those for moderation, and not just auto-ban videos when enough people click on it.
Yes they can afford it.
But the net earnings are over $30 billion for the whole company, so it could come from there.
That said, would human content moderation be particularly better? Lots of stuff falls in the gray.
Ah right sorry, I googled youtube profit, and it returned youtube revenue. I would guess Google doesn't want to even know the profit of youtube, because that would be another anti-trust nail.
> That said, would human content moderation be particularly better? Lots of stuff falls in the gray.
Yeah I agree, that's just back of the napkin computation and it's missing a lot of nuances. Like how can you fact check a video by just looking at it? You can't. This requires more work. But then, you can probably look at videos at x1.5 speed, many videos are probably similar so with proper tooling you can find similarities and at least route it to the same person so they'll have less research to do to validate.
But overall I believe that there are both issues that make it cost more than just that, but also easy optimization wins that make it cost less than that. Either way, I believe that if youtube comes forward saying they spend 2B$/yr human salaries (spending 2B$/yr in training GPT-42 doesn't count) they'll get more respect from their users, even if it's not enough to be prefect.