zlacker

> They cannot use anything except an algorithm to recommend videos.

I agree that with the current business model it is not possible for YouTube to sort it manually.

When I was a kid, a long long time ago, it would have been impossible to conceive that a TV channel showed that kind of content regularly and continue open. If their answer would have been that they cannot fix it because it costs money there would have been an outraged response.

If YouTube cannot keep things legal, cannot respect people rights, cannot be a good responsible part of society because it is not cost effective for me the way to go is clear. And that is true for YouTube, Facebook or any other business digital or not.

>>kartan+(OP)
Youtube is not a TV channel, it's a video crowdsourced sharing site.

If we want to have a "free" (as in no subscription and no money required to be payed for the service) video sharing/uploading site, what model would that make it work and still have human reviewing? I consider the fact that there may be undesirable videos as the cost of having such a site, similarly how to the "cost" of having a free Internet is that there's going to be lots of hate online and free access to tutorials to make bombs and what not. It's part of the deal and I'm happy with that, YMMV. If you worry about what kids might access then don't let them access Youtube but please don't create laws that would make free video sharing sites illegal/impossible to run.

This is true for pretty much any free Internet service that allows for user content. If all of Internet content production will go back to just "official" creators (because they are the only ones where the cost/benefit math would make sense) I think that would be a huge loss/regression over what we have gained since the age of the Internet.

>>kartan+(OP)
When I was a kid in the 80s, cartoons were basically 30 minute toy commercials. My toddler loves watching videos on YouTube of Russian kids playing with toys, so I guess things haven’t changed much.

>>kartan+(OP)
How about actually demonstrating harm to children (or to anyone else) before launching a moral panic?

Is that an option?

>>Camper+tv
I’d say having a 13 year old far right YouTube star post a video threatening to kill the CEO might be harmful, but maybe that’s ok?

https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/social-media/2019/...

>>shears+ay
Do you seriously think that kid was radicalized on YouTube? Where were the parents?

>>Camper+gy
2018: “I’ll pick a topic and just give my opinion about it try to be entertaining, try to be funny, try to be unique and say something other people haven’t said before,” youtuber said.

https://redwoodbark.org/46876/culture/redwood-students-view-...

2019:

In response, the principal of the high school sent a note to students and parents Thursday night regarding the "hate-based video and text posts attributed to one of our students":

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/bay-area-girl-says-she-l...