Even if it were their intention to lessen a perceived cyberbullying risk, why would they employ a solution that seeks to usher those potentially affected out of view? Wouldn't it be better to...
Even if it were their intention to lessen a perceived cyberbullying risk, why would they employ a solution that seeks to usher those potentially affected out of view? Wouldn't it be better to build a community where there was no tolerance for such intolerance? People being branded as not recommended and hardly having access to an audience breaks my heart. This is a really sad read.
This reminds me very heavily of YouTube's recent approach to "protect children" by just completely disabling a lot of functionality (including comments) for all videos and channels that include or...
This reminds me very heavily of YouTube's recent approach to "protect children" by just completely disabling a lot of functionality (including comments) for all videos and channels that include or are targeted at children.
There was a heartbreaking video about it made by the people behind the channel Special Books by Special Kids, which focuses on both children and people with severe disablities. YouTube effectively cut them (and the subjects of their videos) off from their entire community and the positive effects from it, even though they moderated their comments carefully. That was over 8 months ago now, and they never got their comments re-enabled despite multiple pleas, petitions, and other efforts.
Christ, how can they be this blind? Relying on an algorithm when there are so many variables doesn't solve everything. It just makes it more difficult... I get having people reviewing millions of...
Christ, how can they be this blind? Relying on an algorithm when there are so many variables doesn't solve everything. It just makes it more difficult... I get having people reviewing millions of videos isn't feasible but for situations like this where the algorithm fucks up having a could hundred people go in and review what happened and why shouldn't be difficult.
@Deimos, thanks for this. As @Wendigo said, I also acknowledge the infeasibility of reviewing every case but in the same breath do think companies have a responsibility to employ a balance between...
@Deimos, thanks for this. As @Wendigo said, I also acknowledge the infeasibility of reviewing every case but in the same breath do think companies have a responsibility to employ a balance between automation and reason. Especially where there's no serious methodology to back up whatever decisions are imbued into the result. Automation bias is a serious problem that's only going to continue to affect people. For those interested, there's an interesting article related to that here: Should We Be Afraid of AI in the Criminal-Justice System?
Even if it were their intention to lessen a perceived cyberbullying risk, why would they employ a solution that seeks to usher those potentially affected out of view? Wouldn't it be better to build a community where there was no tolerance for such intolerance? People being branded as not recommended and hardly having access to an audience breaks my heart. This is a really sad read.
This reminds me very heavily of YouTube's recent approach to "protect children" by just completely disabling a lot of functionality (including comments) for all videos and channels that include or are targeted at children.
There was a heartbreaking video about it made by the people behind the channel Special Books by Special Kids, which focuses on both children and people with severe disablities. YouTube effectively cut them (and the subjects of their videos) off from their entire community and the positive effects from it, even though they moderated their comments carefully. That was over 8 months ago now, and they never got their comments re-enabled despite multiple pleas, petitions, and other efforts.
Christ, how can they be this blind? Relying on an algorithm when there are so many variables doesn't solve everything. It just makes it more difficult... I get having people reviewing millions of videos isn't feasible but for situations like this where the algorithm fucks up having a could hundred people go in and review what happened and why shouldn't be difficult.
@Deimos, thanks for this. As @Wendigo said, I also acknowledge the infeasibility of reviewing every case but in the same breath do think companies have a responsibility to employ a balance between automation and reason. Especially where there's no serious methodology to back up whatever decisions are imbued into the result. Automation bias is a serious problem that's only going to continue to affect people. For those interested, there's an interesting article related to that here: Should We Be Afraid of AI in the Criminal-Justice System?
On a related note, there's an interesting write up of Tiktok's approach to "privacy" here