undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmoksly4y ago0 comments

> The blame for YouTube’s copyright system is largely not YouTube, lest we forget the parties that actually benefit from it.

It’s entirely YouTubes fault. Their business model is automated moderation and it’s constantly proven faulty. Yet they haven’t made a decent support system around it.

Their automated systems is the primary reason why we would never consider using Google Cloud, even though parts of it would enable us of building apps that we can’t with Azure or AWS. Their support is just horrible though. When something goes wrong with our office365 or azure setup we can call Seattle (I’m not sure where exactly Microsoft is located, sorry) and they will give us hourly updates until it’s fixed. With Google the support we get, even as an enterprise organisation with 10.000 employees is the same you get, an automated process that likely won’t solve your issue until it gathers enough publicity to make a real human at Google notice.

The automated bans and takedowns work for YouTube because it’s content creators and it’s viewers are it’s products and not it’s customers, but I’m looking forward to when the EU puts their foot down on it.

> EU wants to legally mandate the mechanism of Content ID, just another nail in the coffin for the open web really.

The EU is slowly moving to making platforms responsible for their content and how they treat their users. I don’t see it as the end of the open web, however, because the web isn’t open now and haven’t been for quite some time as this channel getting wrongly banned shows you.

Google is an evil advertising company and the sooner they get broken down the better.

0 comments

randomswede4y ago

So, start a video streaming site and show that non-automated moderation scales to whatever scale you would consider to be a successful streaming site.

I suspect (but cannot prove) that the bandwidth and server costs will be small in comparison to the wages for the moderation staff.

Kbelicius4y ago

So what you are saying is that if youtube cannot solve the problem of scale, those problems should be dumped on the general public instead of youtube decreasing their scale? That is some interesting logic.

randomswede4y ago

I am actually all for YouTube becoming less of the behemoth in the market. One way of accomplishing that would be to enforce human moderation instead of machine moderation. Because nothing at the scale of YouTube can (sustainably) use mostly-human moderation and I suspect even "machine-assisted human moderation" would simply require too many people.

If we take "you need about 3x the time of a video to make a considered moderation decision" as a baseline, and trust the numbers from https://merchdope.com/youtube-stats/ as valid, we would need....

300 hours per minute * 1440 minutes per day * 3 moderator hours per day. Let's round that up to 1.3 million hours of daily reviewer time. Let us also assume we have super-human reviewers that can squeeze out 8 hours of solid reviewing a day. That means we need 160k - 170k reviewers. And then we need to account for illness and hols, so make that about a quarter of a million people, to keep up with the incoming and maybe make some inroads on what's been uploaded in the past.

That is actually less than what I expected, I thought the numbers would end up in the "low millions" (call it 3.14 million).

feintruled4y ago

It's the cleverest trick the social media companies pulled. "It's too hard!" So they don't do it!

I'm imagining a world where the answer was "tough luck, you have to or you don't get to do business". Imagine a Facebook where due to the enforced human moderation you were only able to make a single post a day. That actually sounds like it might solve a lot of problems!

mokslyOP4y ago

> So, start a video streaming site and show that non-automated moderation scales to whatever scale you would consider to be a successful streaming site.

Why? I can want regulation of big tech corporations without building a competitor.

Are these humongous advertising companies even a net benefit to the EU? I doubt it, and if they aren’t, then why on earth should we keep them around as is?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

randomswede4y ago

So, start a video streaming site and show that non-automated moderation scales to whatever scale you would consider to be a successful streaming site.

I suspect (but cannot prove) that the bandwidth and server costs will be small in comparison to the wages for the moderation staff.

Kbelicius4y ago

randomswede4y ago

If we take "you need about 3x the time of a video to make a considered moderation decision" as a baseline, and trust the numbers from https://merchdope.com/youtube-stats/ as valid, we would need....

That is actually less than what I expected, I thought the numbers would end up in the "low millions" (call it 3.14 million).

feintruled4y ago

It's the cleverest trick the social media companies pulled. "It's too hard!" So they don't do it!

mokslyOP4y ago

> So, start a video streaming site and show that non-automated moderation scales to whatever scale you would consider to be a successful streaming site.

Why? I can want regulation of big tech corporations without building a competitor.

Are these humongous advertising companies even a net benefit to the EU? I doubt it, and if they aren’t, then why on earth should we keep them around as is?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse