zlacker

>>furcyd+(OP)
I don't know if YouTube's problems are so bad that the argument applies in this case, but in general, "We can't comply with this regulation, it would be too difficult at our scale" is not considered a valid defense. Just as banks shouldn't be allowed to get so large that they can't fail without wreaking havoc on the economy, if algorithmic recommendation and moderation can't work, then maybe social networks shouldn't be allowed to get so large that human moderation is not possible.

>>Analem+6j
The queue for getting your video posted on YouTube would grow infinitely. (Or, more realistically, people would give up and not bother once it takes years.)

But I guess they could charge money to get to the head of the line?

>>skybri+hk
That's not true you can upload a video and not allow it to be recommended until some human review was done. Most youtube channels don't need the recommendation engine.

>>Pretze+tl
> Most youtube channels don't need the recommendation engine.

This is just not true. A massive part of the views originate from recommended/up next. Ask pretty much any creator. Only the core audience of a channel will have the notification bell on for a specific channel. Many users don't check the Subscription section and either link in from an external source, know beforehand what they want to search for or just watch what pops up in recommended.