| > I don't think there is an obvious solution here, no matter how much it cost. If that's the case, then it may be back to Youtube doesn't scale. > Second is the fact that moderation is a very mentally exhausting effort. You have an impossible trilemma. Youtube: * Allows/must allow anonymous or pseudonymous content creation, without the ability to ban bad actors; * Faces significant social (sometimes legal) liability for content hosting and especially curation/promotion; and * Wants to provide friction-free, speedy, and consistent policies to its content creators. Those can't all exist at the same time. Right now, what gives is a bit of #3 (seemingly arbitrary, severe, and algorithmic actions against channels) and a bit of #2 (occasional stories about how Youtube is evil for promoting flat-earth Nazism vaccine-denial theory to children or whatever). Youtube could go with a heavy-moderation approach, by requiring content creators first register with a government ID (plus business license in each country of intended audience) along with prior human-moderator approval of each uploaded video. But that would fundamentally change the platform into something more like a traditional TV network rather than dynamic social media. Other commenters here go heavier on the "free speech" side of things and think that Youtube ought to face no repercussions (social or legal) for hosted content, freeing it of the need to moderate. I'm not sure how we would get there from here, but nevermind that job for lobbyists. Society as a whole seems to implicitly solve this problem by not being a big giant curator under its own brand. Traditional media still exists as many (notionally-)separate outlets, each with their own branding and editorial views to offer at least limited competition. But if this is the only viable model, it's still another way of saying that Youtube doesn't scale. |