Re:YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on...
by SirSourdough on Wednesday April 14, 2021 @03:09PM
(#26811649)
Why wouldn't we assume they are lying? Interacting with their dispute process doesn't have any human qualities, so what would make us think that humans are involved?
They are a massive monopoly and just the other day it was reported that they manipulated their own ad markets for their own profit. They constantly inaccurately accuse people of malicious intent and copyright infringement, often massively hindering peoples' careers and generally providing zero recourse. To not assume lying and at best self-serving intent given Alphabet/Google's position in the world would be foolish.
On top of that, is it really that different to use inaccurate AI or to use humans who are intentionally not given the time or tools to do human-quality work?
The problem is obviously with the overall quality of moderation, and the level of power exerted by platforms over users. Whether a non-skilled human reviewer or an AI is handling the broken process hardly matters given the results.
They are a massive monopoly and just the other day it was reported that they manipulated their own ad markets for their own profit. They constantly inaccurately accuse people of malicious intent and copyright infringement, often massively hindering peoples' careers and generally providing zero recourse. To not assume lying and at best self-serving intent given Alphabet/Google's position in the world would be foolish.
On top of that, is it really that different to use inaccurate AI or to use humans who are intentionally not given the time or tools to do human-quality work?
The problem is obviously with the overall quality of moderation, and the level of power exerted by platforms over users. Whether a non-skilled human reviewer or an AI is handling the broken process hardly matters given the results.