Hacker News Reader

Comment by altgoogler | Hacker News Reader

Googler here, who doesn't work in the YouTube PA.

It does certainly seem like this was an erroneous take-down. I'm not familiar with the content, but I can't imagine a more innocuous channel. If JPdylon is out there, the first recommendation is to appeal the decision [1].

Granted that doesn't always work, and it's unfortunate that common next step is to resort to "Support via Hacker News". That being said, content moderation is a super hard problem. It needs to get better and more fair on both sides (i.e. taking down what should be; leaving up what is quality content), but the scale here is often forgotten.

There is far, far too much content posted to manually review. If EEVblog's suggestion was taken and Susan (YouTube CEO) had to manually review every moderation action on channels with 5K+ subs, she would not be able to keep up. If you had a team of people, they would not be able to keep up. Even if you had a fleet of people, the scale is just unreal.

EEVblog's suggestion to diversify platforms is reasonable. The fact that those platforms don't have some of the same problems doesn't necessarily mean that they're better at content moderation, however. They just don't have to operate on the same scale.

[1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/185111

View on HN

May I make a simpler suggestion:

- a list of clear rules

- takedowns must provide a reference of which video caused the takedown, roughly where in the video it was, and which rule it was violating

Someone may reply that this is feeding information on the rule boundaries to spammers, at which point I make a second suggestion which could apply to more services:

- a "this platform is valuable to me" deposit, of say $10, which guarantees human review of administrative decisions.

It's people's livelihood. You can't just vaporise it. Well, you can, but eventually the angry mob you create will get large enough and come for your statue.

These are really basic, reasonable suggestions. It's baffling Google/YouTube doesn't at least afford such basic dignities to its most important population: original content creators.

The answer is pretty obvious, the current system is what Google wants. It’s perfect in their eyes.

> come for your statue.

Joke's on them: Google Maps will just give the angry mob directions to the Amazon HQ instead.

That is why you use apple maps ;)

Simply requiring a small fee for review is a great suggestion!

It would be difficult to structure this but simply allowing a video creator (or any fan of the channel!) to pay a Youtube analyst or a third-party auditor at cost ($10 seems reasonable for 15 minutes of even a decently-payed, English-speaking Western employee's time) to review the channel/video for 15 minutes for actual violations would be a huge boon to real content creators.

This would also allow Google to identify what takedown requests are blackmail botnets and block them from doing further harm.

If anyone at Google is reading this please consider it! So many viewers would be willing to pay that this need not even impact creators.

(Obviously this would have to be kept from getting out of hand and turning into Google racketeering with multiple takedowns of the same channel, but I trust them not to do that)

Another suggestion is to simply hold a small amount of ad revenue for review for larger channels.

The given channel was estimated to make $4 per video. Just holding a small amount of revenue for review would pay for the human time.

Losing $10 is vastly better for the monetized creator than losing the channel completely.

Asking people to pay for a human reviewer is a recipe for bad PR. Inevitably, some content creator is going to pay $10 and disagree with a ruling even if it's justified. They'll then complain that it's all a scam. To be fair, there wouldn't be a way to prove that it's not a scam. Also, humans are inevitably wrong decisions, especially when it comes to videos that are borderline.

> Asking people to pay for a human reviewer is a recipe for bad PR. Inevitably, some content creator is going to pay $10 and disagree with a ruling even if it's justified.

I don't really see how this is any different now. Google is already generating bad PR by not having an appeal process for these issues and plenty of people are already complaining that it's all a scam.

If a nominal fee gets you a written report that details exactly how you offended YT's policies and creates a possible scenario which you're given the opportunity to course-correct perhaps, then it's a win. What you're arguing would happen is already happening.

> I don't really see how this is any different now.

Right now, blocking a video will lead to Google being unable to earn money from it. Their incentives are aligned with those of the video creator.

> What you're arguing would happen is already happening

No, right now you are not pressured into giving Google money to review their automated decisions. With the suggested system implemented, you might fork over $10 individually for each of your 452 videos and get humans picking mostly the same useless text block in response, not really helping you to understand their decision. You will feel kind of like now, except you notice that YT actually made more money by banning your videos and start to wonder if that is by design...

Courts are great, but have to be independent. Even arbitration can be skewed in favor of bigger companies, since getting their recurring business is in the arbitrators interest.

I'd still be in favor of setting up something like that for lower level decisions, but understand this can only happen if Google finds a way to stay out of the line of fire. And still keeps a way for them to overrule those third party decisions...

> "Right now, blocking a video will lead to Google being unable to earn money from it. Their incentives are aligned with those of the video creator."

I would say that's only true if the volume of video content was a bottleneck for their advertisers. They have more than enough content.

There's the problem that money is an incentive. So if you pay to review takedowns, it is an incentive for Google to do EVEN MORE takedowns, because then they would earn more money.

Fee can be refundable if review is not malicious. Win-win.

The bot that issued the takedown should be charged the $10 fee for every decision that is reversed. Today there is basically no consequence for automated false takedown notices if you are a big media cartel, so they don't care. They tune their systems to minimize false negatives at the cost of many false positives because nobody is stopping them.

Of course there are "no consequences" to YouTube for an incorrect anything. They are a private company. Why would they punish themselves?

This isn't about consequences to YouTube. It's about consequences to copyright holders for frivolous takedowns.

When you issue a DMCA notice, you're certifying that the content is yours, under (theoretical) penalty of perjury. But big content studios erroneously issue them using automated systems all the time, and the only way to actually enforce this is for you, the individual getting targeted by one, to personally take legal action against a multinational corporation.

Meaning that, for all practical purposes, the people this affects have zero recourse.

This is why automated content takedown doesn't use the DMCA. It's a system designed by the content cartels.

That is wrong.

Nearly 100% of people who receive a DMCA notice of alleged infringement (read: 'copyright strike') from YouTube have the option of filing a counter-notification.

In nearly all cases, YouTube responds to valid counter-notifications by informing the party that initiated the takedown. Counter-notification starts the clock on a 10-day window, within which the party alleging infringement must - if they want to keep the video down - sue you in federal court and prove to YouTube that they they have filed suit against you. Otherwise the video goes back up.

That procedure is almost always available. The downside, of course, is that you might get sued for an enormous amount of money that you may be held liable for. Statutory damages are scary. (But thy are a consequence of infringement, not notice-and-takedown.)

I’d argue that bot should be charged multiple orders if magnitude more than $10.

The only way to modify that behavior is to make it hurt.

Why not ask the reporter for the fee?

Something I didn't make clear in the original proposal was that the "please treat me with respect" fee would have to be paid before any dispute.

Or the far more radical point of view that people who are economically dependent on Google are employees .. although that is probably impossible to define and unworkable.

Sometimes simple suggestions are complex to implement or have wide reaching implications.

For example, it is very hard to come up with a sort list of clear content rules. There are all sorts of ambiguities. For example, when is nudity ok? What about violence? Every line you draw in the sand will have false positives and false negatives. See any number of stories about Facebook moderators who despite having lots of content rules, will make subjective and contradictory judgement calls.

Furthermore, with a concrete list of rules, bad actors will act just to the left of rules violations. Clearly, having some feedback is required. In this case, however, we don't know what Jordan Pier knew, since this was initially a reaction to the channel's deletion without consulting with Jordan about what happened.

Finally, having a support deposit--no matter how small--will disadvantage many creators and increase the divide between haves and have-nots. I admit that it's frustrating that you literally can't purchase a human's attention, but every policy decision like this has profound ramifications when you have billions of users.

> it is very hard to come up with a sort list of clear content rules. There are all sorts of ambiguities. For example, when is nudity OK? What about violence? Every line you draw in the sand will have false positives and false negatives

These aren't new questions, organizations like the BBFC and MPAA have been wrestling with them for years. And Google will have been wrestling with them internally .. in total secrecy. Yes, there are always going to be edge cases and people intentionally working up to the edge.

> having a support deposit--no matter how small--will disadvantage many creators and increase the divide between haves and have-nots.

I get that, but at the moment everyone's disadvantaged, and the larger creators potentially for tens of thousands of dollars.

The BBFA and MPAA, if I understand correctly, watch every second of content they rate. They have a back-and-forth with creators when there are disputes. They can afford to communicate, well, this is one f-bomb too many and usless you remove it, it's an "R" rating.

Secondly, they work with (largely) mainstream content producers (e.g. movie studios), who rarely act with downright malicious intent because of reputation and money on the line.

I don't believe content moderation is a problem solved well anywhere.

And this costs over $300 an hour. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/...

How come you don't moderate Google's search results and remove homophobia/violence/rape content from them? You already have a platform where you don't care at all about the content you host and present the user with. Your company chose to enter into the content moderation business on YT solely to make it more ad friendly and make more money, its should not be the creators responsibility to suggest changes to your moderation that can "scale" (i.e. make you more money).

If bad actors act just left of the rules violations, change the rule. Google is a private company, not a government. They can change their content policy 20 times before lunch if they wanted. Making things vague hurts legitimate channels more than anything.

If Youtube has the power to change rules whenever they found something new that is inappropriate, they would no longer be simple and clear. Also, they would also have to apply that rule retroactively to innocent videos that also happen to break the rule.

No there should be a deposit for flagging content, refundable one, if content is not in violation fee is kept for work done, if content is malicious. Content is taken down - fee refunded.

There are no ambiguities. Daddy Google doesn't want to look like a movie review board, with all its reactionary decisions, but they want to act like one.

It is ambiguous, because they are dealing with advertisers that don't want their ads around specific contexts. Which are very multivariate and ever changing.

Youtube tried having a list of clear rules. The problem is it doesn't work. People will always find a way to find a way find a grey area. Youtube doesn't want to be in the position where they have to explain why a video of little girl roleplaying a cop is inappropriate, but a regular video of a kid playing is fine. People would complain that it's actually Youtube that is sexualizing children.

When? Explain? I don't remember them trying a clear list of rules..

The videos are removed because somebody reports them. The "reporters" should also have "a skin in the game" e.g. their "karma" should suffer (i.e. the "amount of belief in their claim") every time they report and the claim is rejected. The initial "karma of the reporter" (for new accounts reporting) should also be low.

On the other side, the content producer's "defending" karma should also increase each time the claim is rejected.

And then, the "content police" should somehow need more "work" to ban or remove something the weaker the claim is or the defendant is "stronger."

I am aware that the "platforms", however, simply don't care much now, simply prioritizing the "reaction."

I love this idea, albeit there are definitely ways to game the system. As a content producer, I would probably pay to have a bunch of fake-users report my channel just so that I could gain "karma" to defend against actual future attacks. Still, I suppose it would probably be an improvement upon the current situation, where there is absolutely no recourse other than posting on various social media channels and hoping your complaint gains enough attention.

Make heavy financial penalties for false takedowns.

Google will never post a list of clear rules. It would restrict their ability to take down content that goes against their political ideology. Facebook and Twitter are the same in this respect.

With respect, when I hear FANG employees putting forward scale as a reason why "moderation is a super hard problem" I'm bemused.

If this was a hardware or software issue it would be obvious that you're trying to scale systems that do not scale.

In technical terms, social "algorithms" are O(k^n), exponential.

You're trying to do the impossible, eh?

(Really, the argument could be made that FANG et. al. are becoming a new de facto world government. From that POV you're attempting to solve the hardest human problem, eh?)

- - - -

No one is forcing you to be that big. At the end of the day, scraping away all the bright-eyed rhetoric about "connecting all the people, places, and things for great good", you're doing it for money. Building a moderated social network isn't impossible (maybe) but it's woefully expensive.

The existing systems are, arguably, harming people and messing up society, tech companies notoriously have a lot of money already, but are unwilling to prioritize and pay for the moderation that could (arguably) improve things.

So... what? I don't have any answers, I just want to point out that from my POV the problem is clearly hubris and basic cheapness.

Indeed, the question is what should be done, or how should it have been done differently? Should YT have grown more slowly?

FWIW, I don't think money is the limiting factor here. If there was a known good solution, but it took $10B to implement, I think it would be done.

You could pay X thousands (more) moderators, but there are drawbacks in a human solution as well. First is the fact since there's human judgement, rules will be applied inconsistently, and probably with some bias.

Second is the fact that moderation is a very mentally exhausting effort. You can observe some of the cyclical nature of this balance from the news over the past few years. Article about moderators with PTSD? Well, automation is the solution. Automation fails in a lot of edge cases? Well, why not hire armies of people to do it for you?

I don't think there is an obvious solution here, no matter how much it cost.

> I don't think there is an obvious solution here, no matter how much it cost.

If that's the case, then it may be back to Youtube doesn't scale.

> Second is the fact that moderation is a very mentally exhausting effort.

You have an impossible trilemma. Youtube:

* Allows/must allow anonymous or pseudonymous content creation, without the ability to ban bad actors;

* Faces significant social (sometimes legal) liability for content hosting and especially curation/promotion; and

* Wants to provide friction-free, speedy, and consistent policies to its content creators.

Those can't all exist at the same time. Right now, what gives is a bit of #3 (seemingly arbitrary, severe, and algorithmic actions against channels) and a bit of #2 (occasional stories about how Youtube is evil for promoting flat-earth Nazism vaccine-denial theory to children or whatever).

Youtube could go with a heavy-moderation approach, by requiring content creators first register with a government ID (plus business license in each country of intended audience) along with prior human-moderator approval of each uploaded video. But that would fundamentally change the platform into something more like a traditional TV network rather than dynamic social media.

Other commenters here go heavier on the "free speech" side of things and think that Youtube ought to face no repercussions (social or legal) for hosted content, freeing it of the need to moderate. I'm not sure how we would get there from here, but nevermind that job for lobbyists.

Society as a whole seems to implicitly solve this problem by not being a big giant curator under its own brand. Traditional media still exists as many (notionally-)separate outlets, each with their own branding and editorial views to offer at least limited competition. But if this is the only viable model, it's still another way of saying that Youtube doesn't scale.

> I don't think there is an obvious solution here, no matter how much it cost.

The issue is centralizing social decisions to a single entity. We already have a model where corporate entities provide services at scale without taking on much of the social aspect: Utilities and infrastructure. So find a way to become a video hosting utility. An uncaring pipe. Create tools for users to build their own fiefdoms and branding and have it moderate themselves. Tying advertising into that might be difficult, but perhaps it would be up to those users, pay for the services or automatically enter an agreement with advertisers. If advertisers pull their content for whatever reason then people could choose to pay themselves or perhaps make a deal with different advertisers.

Hosting adult-related content that most brands don't want to touch? Perhaps make a deal with seedier advertisers. Youtube would still take its cut, but only as part of infrastructure fees.

Want to promote your content to other circles? Well, you're essentially an advertiser yourself now.

To be frank the only hubris I see is from the critics who complain about YouTube that it "shouldn't be that big" and that "big tech is ruining society and democracy".

The critics think that they know better than society and impose demands not codified in any law nor how things remotely work. How the hell should YouTube have decided to keep its size acceptably small then? Youtubes 1 to 99999 and hope people go to the right arbitrary subsegment? The demanda are arrogant and clueless as saying that builders should only use rubber headed hammers and nailguns should be banned because it would reduce construction noise knowing nothing about the field or its practicalities. Now /that/ is hubris.

They could certainly be smaller. If they were 50% smaller, which 50% of their current content do you think they should get rid of? Anything smaller or with more moderation will have less content. I suspect what we have now is the best that we can have.

Panama! (Nice user name.)

> If they were 50% smaller, which 50% of their current content do you think they should get rid of?

Couldn't they just split in twain? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_division

(I lied when I said, "I don't have any answers". I do have answers.)

- Don't delete accounts entirely when they are reported, just lock them. If it's not disputed delete them 1 year later.

- Add a "reputability score" for every channel which is log((total videos) * total views * total likes * months since first video). Obviously there should be a HUGE burden of proof when deleting a channel with millions of views and over a dozen videos.

- These are just two 15-minute-ideas of an engineer who can't get an interview at google. I'm sure among the thousands of employees somebody has an even better one.

I doubt the account and videos are actually "deleted". I don't think Google deletes anything.

YT moderation is genuinely baffling.

YT has policies against animal cruelty, but a search for "electric mouse traps" shows a bunch of live animals being killed. (There are a lot of these).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0D4rJ6zNuM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh_QXnJcP7M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwKN8h1du8s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgh9Bs4TFdY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SIlYiiCGLI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_a8Pcd8k9s

This is most likely not a problem of policy but rather that nobody has flagged these videos yet.

And you should blame that (that nobody flagged them) on the double-standard most people have towards "not hurting innocent animals" vs "freedom to do any slaughter with the so-called 'pests'".

This. I was watching a video of some pigs playing the other day and suddenly became an "ovo-lacto" vegan.

I'm not sure if sarcastic but how is that different from a vegetarian? The exclusion of honey?

ovo lacto is a "vegetarian" that also eats eggs and dairy so i presume it is something to do with other things, like the exclusion of leather goods? honey is a touchy subject even for vegans

Actually, it's a really good question. I don't know. I haven't thought things through (yet), I just realized that I can't abide the thought of eating such a cool critter now that I've actually seen what they're like.

I eat meat but the dairy industry sickens me... Cows are damn clever, and they only give milk when we take their babies away (to then eat them for veal often).

As I say I don't mind the killing of a healthy animal for meat, but the milk industry just sticks in my throat (especially when it is so easy (and tasty) to cut out milk these days)

(or was your comment a joke :p)

Plenty of people flag these videos.

If this is really so, then the reason would be that Google intervenes on the basis of illegality: animal cruelty is illegal, whereas pest control is not.

This discrepancy between how we pretend to protect animals but still do plain "pest control" is weird (this is a weak word), but this is a quirk of our "modern" society.

The law is made democratically, so that just means that a majority of the citizens think that it is not ok to hurt animals, but that it is ok to use mousetraps. Blame on the lack of awareness of the society.

But then, in turn, this means that not a lot of people flag the video, if the majority of them still think that pest control should be legal. If not, then now should be the right time to change the law of the country where you/me live.

The moderation isn't baffling,it just can't keep up. For every topic you choose that YT isn't moderating correctly, I can find 10 more topics that they aren't moderating correctly, all that break YTs rules. At what point would you consider the issue isn't that the moderation is biased, the issue is that the moderation can't keep up?

You can't just ban everything with electric mouse trap in the title - this video [0] is on the first page of searches and doesn't contain any rule breaking content. If a band appears titled "electric mouse trap", do you want that content to be removed?

There are so many topics, so many videos,so many people actively trying to skirt the rules that it's just infeasible to moderate purely by scale. According to [1], there are 30k hours of content uploaded to YT every hour. How do you suggest they moderate even just the new content, never mind the backlog of content.

To be clear, I'm not defending the content on YouTube, or their moderation/takedown practices and responses, I just want to point out that it's not as simple as "just moderate better"

[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GYIk14jyXzw

[1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/259477/hours-of-video-up...

> The moderation isn't baffling,it just can't keep up....

> There are so many topics, so many videos,so many people actively trying to skirt the rules that it's just infeasible to moderate purely by scale. According to [1], there are 30k hours of content uploaded to YT every hour. How do you suggest they moderate even just the new content, never mind the backlog of content.

That's really an argument that they have to reduce their scale until it matches their moderation ability (or increase their moderation ability until it matches their scale). We wouldn't accept a car company failing to recall and fix defective cars that they sold because their repair shops lack the capacity to do so.

I don't understand what you imagine when you say "reduce their scale".

Send 999 out of 1000 viewers away? Delete 999 of 1000 channels? Block 999 of 1000 video uploads? I genuinely don't understand what you are looking for.

And note that this would still be 30 hours of new content per hour. And it would change nothing about the economics of moderating content.

It shouldn't be that baffling when you realize that the policy language is entirely irrelevant.

The only content policy that matters is unwritten: "No content which could cause a large or loud enough objection to disrupt add revenue."

Objections to mouse traps or hunting is not large or loud enough to hurt the bottom line.

This whole article is about an innocuous channel that was deleted for no reason.

The reason is pretty clear to me. The channel was bycatch for algorithms intended to block offensive content.

If you mean that the channel didn't do anything "wrong", and shouldn't have been deleted, I totally agree.

Legally and conceptually animal crueltly doesn't just mean "painful or deadly things happening to animals. Despite the name it is more implicitly "gratitutousness animal cruelty" which is defined as not serving a purpose.

Tar paper traps lead to a slow death by starvation but it is a side effect of the function - to work without "triggering" and inconveniencing anything much larger instead of risking harm. No need to take a cat to the vet if they step on it, just wash them off and maybe clip some fur keeping it attached. The fact it causes more suffering than a mechanical trap isn't enough to qualify although one may object to its usage. But breaking a mouse's leg just to laugh at it and watch it crawl? Gratitutous and would qualify as animal cruelty.

In the same vein that "hate speech" means "political opinions we disagree with", "animal cruelty" really means "animal cruelty towards animals we don't like for reasons we don't like"

The problem is that Youtube's policy of aggressive takedown has enabled a massive abuse of the system. You can go and find many prominent YT creators complaining about their videos being taken down by false copyright claims. Literally any of us could go to a single channel, issue 3 copyright strikes and their channel will be taken down, with no regards to fair use whatsoever.

Moderation here isn't the problem. Youtube's policing has downright enabled censorship on the site.

So, there's the solution then: massively file false claims until each and every channel is taken down forcing Google to deal with the problem.

> but the scale here is often forgotten.

I don't think anybody here is forgetting the scale; they simply understand that Google-scale problems come with google-scale revenue.

Omitting this fact seems like an insincere overture to the community of upset users, to me.

It's the small content creators getting hurt here, though. As in, the ones that don't generate google-scale revenue. You're asking a for-profit business to lose money on inconsequential revenue streams. That doesn't work.

The channels that do actually have revenue impacts are the ones with actual people reps already.

Also please have a look at Craig Tube/Vinyl TV, his channels have returned under a slightly different new name, but all the previous content has been lost from the old ones:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC40wiRfP8u2DrVvUm_VGcqw

https://www.youtube.com/user/CraigTube/videos

Archived copies:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200227065130/https://www.youtu...

https://web.archive.org/web/20120625045947/https://www.youtu...

I get that YouTube is attempting to pick through a torrent of stuff and that manual review is not feasible at such a scale. This is fine. This is self-evident.

Saying what video and when in the video tripped what part of the magic algorithm is also doable. I think we both understand that the algo has to do the work, and it has to output a "yes/no" at the end. However, absolutely nothing forbids coming up with some kind of feedback or error message. The algorithm is doubtlessly complex, and was therefore debugged. Yes/no was not sufficient for debugging in its development. The mechanisms are present.

Expose this to the user.

There appears to be a disturbing consensus here that YouTube HAS to moderate. Why? If YouTube isn't held responsible for the content, and are treated merely as a carrier, you can imagine layer 2 filtering businesses emerge, if YouTube let them. YouTube could still be the repository, still make money, but get out of the business of deciding who gets to see what.

Because they already found out what happens when they don't moderate enough: major advertisers leave the platform entirely. With their money.

YouTube is an internet advertising company like pretty much everything else Google. That they serve video content is ancillary.

> If EEVblog's suggestion was taken and Susan (YouTube CEO) had to manually review every moderation action on channels with 5K+ subs, she would not be able to keep up.

Maybe perform fewer moderation actions?

If there were fewer moderation actions, then we'd be seeing more articles saying how obviously abusive content that should have been taken down and wasn't.

There are many sophisticated actors that try and game the system, and it's because of them at sometimes the system makes the wrong call.

I feel only the questionable removals make it to HN or other tech sites that make it feel like lesser moderation would be better. But the fact is there is a vast ocean of disturbing content that literally causes some moderators to lose their mental and need counseling.

Why not offer a model of pay-for-support, instead of ramming us with ads and saying "LOL it's free so f off"? Not you specifically, or even Google specifically, but that seems to be a common theme. I'm sure plenty of people would be willing to pay a monthly fee to avoid exactly this.

This takedown was presumably automated, which seems to be a bulk of the complaints. The algorithm to automate "objectionable content" seems to be horribly inaccurate. A better approach might to be to disable all automated takedowns, and don't take down anything except content manually flagged for illegal content, which are then manually reviewed.

And before you say this won't scale, this is how Reddit moderation works, and seems to work for millions of posts made every day.

Also, some sort of public log of takedowns and reasons in some form we could verify might also be nice. It's super creepy seeing someone "disappeared" from the Internet without so much as a peep from Youtube/Google.

It is one thing to make mistakes. It is another to present a person who spent significant part of their life invested in your platform with no way to get hang of a real person to appeal their process.

People should not be expected to somehow get another famous youtuber and a hang of an insider through HN front page to get their problems resolved.

So hire more people to cope with the load? Implement automation (verifying that a takedown is appropriate) where it makes sense to reduce the load? Have established guidelines and procedures? Place the majority of the burden of proof on the initiator of a takedown action? Place repeat offenders on a blacklist after warning them?

Maybe not workable due to scale but can they never the less set up a pre-emptive review system where if you’re willing to have something pre-approved (reviewed before publishing) by moderators that that content cannot be automatically axed and would require manual intervention with an independent appeals process?

How much do you think they would have to charge for that service? And how much would you be willing to pay?

> the first recommendation is to appeal the decision

Well this is BS, it's like saying the author of a book at a library should be the one to complain if the library censors the book. Don't the library's patrons get any say?

> They just don't have to operate on the same scale.

If Google can't operate at scale, then maybe it just needs to be shut down so maybe someone who can will take their place.

Google simply doesn't WANT to operate at scale because that will impact profits.

There is far, far too much content posted to manually review.

Then don't take it down, and let the Justice Department do it. Or accept being an editor. You can't have it both ways.

Why does he need to go through an appeal when it's had attention brought to it?

Your appeal to scale here doesn't apply to this case.

Because it's not clear why the channel was taken down in the first place. I don't have any insider information in that regard. I don't have access to the system that would tell me the reason.

It's possible (however unlikely) that there was a justified reason for the take down. Has anybody heard from the original creator?

> but the scale here is often forgotten.

Is there a reason why Google cannot hire more people?

This comment could easily be interpreted as you speaking for Google.

To clarify, I have no insider knowledge of this matter, I don't speak in any official context and all of my opinions are my own.

I consider adding that to every Google related comment, but it gets tiring.

Why not just add it to your profile 'about' section?

That is a good suggestion. Done.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com