"Youtube has no realistic way to tell whether someone producing home-made science on youtube is a phd ex-nasa biohacker who follows best practices or just a complete quack who tries to sell dangerous fake remedies to vulnerable people."
We shouldn't pretend someone with a significant following is banned or demonetized because The Algorithm Made Me Do Itβ’.
YouTube has the resources to verify if a popular streamer is a genuine PhD and formerly worked at NASA. Far smaller companies do these kinds of vefrifications all the time. It just chooses not to, even in the process of banning an account.
Note I'm not arguing those credentials alone should mean very much. I just question in general, the argument that companies can't "realistically" take certain measures because it wouldn't scale. Most of the time, they don't take them because they're neither required to and it wouldn't improve their bottom line.
And can you imagine how hard that would be in cases like this? Imagine having to take a week reading up on bioengineering and experimenting to be able to moderate one video! The stats would look terrible!
That said, I think only a very small proportion of videos would take that amount of verification, most could be dismissed far more easily.
We shouldn't pretend someone with a significant following is banned or demonetized because The Algorithm Made Me Do Itβ’.
YouTube has the resources to verify if a popular streamer is a genuine PhD and formerly worked at NASA. Far smaller companies do these kinds of vefrifications all the time. It just chooses not to, even in the process of banning an account.
Note I'm not arguing those credentials alone should mean very much. I just question in general, the argument that companies can't "realistically" take certain measures because it wouldn't scale. Most of the time, they don't take them because they're neither required to and it wouldn't improve their bottom line.