Some things don't scale well and guess what that is cost of business. Imagine a company suddenly removing seats from cars just to increase their profit margin. People would think they are crazy. So why are we accepting this when tech companies do it with customer service?
I promise you that the man on the street doesn't consider this acceptable. That so many in tech believe it is fills me with despair. Our industry isn't alone in having scalability problems, but we do stand alone in the belief that it's then fine to ignore the customer.
In a way I sympathize with Google, Youtube, Facebook and all the other companies operating as mass scale. On the one hand their algorithms suck for moderation, but on the other hand they are the most advanced created yet and there is simply no alternative. I would imagine in the next 10-15 years the players will get moderation under control and be able to model AI to moderate fairly. But that's going to be a slow process because there isn't any alternative to AI in this case, at least how I see it.
That's not the problem that needs solving. A manual review of the videos that are flagged by the AI snitch is all that's needed. Google can very easily afford this level of manual oversight.
When Google provides dogshit services, you expect people to pay for them to be reminded to fix it ?
Having to refund people in cases where Google’s AI fails would create an incentive for them to improve the AI and set higher thresholds for content to get flagged.
I think my idea would make the system work better overall without making it worse for anyone.
Here's how it would actually go:
* AI flags your video
* You pay 5 dollars to have it reviewed by a human
* Either immediately as it's conceived, or a few months down later the line when some manager figured out they could lower costs this way, an AI reviews your video again, and never finds Google at fault.
Never underestimate Google's absolute disdain for its users.
Doesn't his means they've scaled beyond sustainable? As I read it, it's a good argument for them being broken up.
I think a 'bond' system where you put up money to get human appeal, and get half back if the appeal is successful. Maybe with increasing bond as you lose more appeals. Is a much better system.
I don't. There's another alternative.
If you're growing too big to moderate, stop growing. Turn off signups. It's irresponsible to do anything else but, and "but we'll make less money" isn't a valid argument to this.
Uploaders form associations where if one uploader gets flagged, the union decides to agree with the moderation, possibly kicking the user for repeat violations, but if the union disagrees with the moderation they can threaten to disable all their videos until the decision is reversed.
google will have to listen to suitabaly large uploaders unions, and its mutually beneficial: moderation gets decentralized
[x] Child pornography
[x] Violence
Yep, this would work wonderfully!
Nonsense.