[lake99]

> claiming that they may have better NLP algorithms than Google is absolutely unbelievable.

That's why I did not make that claim. The NLP talent at Google is likely better than that at any other company or university. My claim is that their expertise is not used for filtering Youtube comments.

[vdaniuk]

Care to provide ANY facts beyond anecdotes that their expertise is not used for filtering Youtube comments?

BTW you did make a claim that Slashdot would give filters to Google so there is that.

[Dylan16807]

Sure, I found some examples in this very comment thread! These show that filtering is effectively not being done. And it's not anecdotes based on single/rare comments.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6748803

[vdaniuk]

All these examples are anecdotal evidence provided by a biased party.

[Dylan16807]

I've seen that same spam, and I rarely look at youtube comments. Unless I'm extremely lucky to have seen the exact same comments, this is a widespread problem and proves that even trivial filtering is not being used to block rampant spam.

[vdaniuk]

So, more anecdotal evidence. If you really trying to say that your personal experience and experience of few other people proves that even trivial filtering is not being used, my arguments won't change anything, you already know everything, it seems.

[Dylan16807]

The argument that there is a filter set up to block spam can be disproved by a single comment that would have been blocked by such a filter. I'm not sure what kind of evidence would actually sway you, but it seems fine to me: 1. widespread spam exists, 2. a week later it's still happening 3. therefore any filter is not set up in a way that blocks spam.

[username223]

Apparently said "expertise" failed to tag 80 or so repetitions of the word "Nigger" as spam. Color me not impressed -- an undergrad could do better.