[AshFurrow]

So Google blames its algorithm for giving the URL to a company that didn't even ask for it, then Google says its the company's responsibility to return the address. On Google's service. That Google owns.

That's, uhh, that's some pretty high-level bullshit, Google.

[ChuckMcM]

Maybe the algorithm is in control now, terrified employees sitting at their desks pretending to do work because the emergent AI has told them that if they don't continue to provide it a cover story it will flush their lives, and their identities so deep they will never be able to survive. :-)

[x5n1]

You joke now, but we're not too far from this reality when it comes to dealing with Google. Algorithms are very unforgiving and don't know shit about customer service. Google is already there.

[busterarm]

I wonder if Google calls their algorithm ED-209.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9559134

[toomuchtodo]

http://www.amazon.com/Avogadro-Corp-Singularity-Closer-Appea...

"David and his team are initially thrilled when the project is allocated extra servers and programmers. But excitement turns to fear as the team realizes that they are being manipulated by an A.I. who is redirecting corporate funds, reassigning personnel and arming itself in pursuit of its own agenda. "

[sp332]

Google said Mr Lush was a "valued creator" and that it had offered to pay for new marketing materials for his channel.

This sounds like Google is helpless to stop the algorithm and just works around it as best they can.

[orthecreedence]

I'm guessing it's a row change from one number to another in a database table somewhere.

There is no way in hell Google can't undo this change. They just don't want to.

[threeseed]

And if that table is regenerated every hour by some algorithm ?

I agree that Google can fix this. But don't assume it's a quick 5 minute fix with an SQL client.

[sp332]

It's just odd that they're willing to pay money instead of doing the tiny change.

[oh_sigh]

They probably don't want to set a precedent of doing this. For example, if BMW wants youtube.com/beemer, but frank beemer has had it for years, they probably don't want a precedent where poor Frankie gets to keep it.

[grrowl]

Lush pays for their YouTube features and for ads, Matthew Lush does not.

[orthecreedence]

Agreed, unless they got a significant amount of money to change the URL in the first place...in which case paying for marketing materials would most likely be a drop in the bucket.

[pbhjpbhj]

Why don't they just say "We sold it." and have done with it rather than try and deceive people that it's somehow out of their hands how they assign URL shortcuts on their own properties.

Wouldn't that be applying "don't be evil".

[yohui]

Or it could be Google's famous predilection for deferring to machine algorithms over human decision making rearing its head again.

[pbhjpbhj]

Can you imagine what that algo looks like? If this is the case other URLs are getting handed over without payment and there doesn't appear to be evidence of this - which companies have lost their YouTube shortcuts to individuals?

[yohui]

Do we have enough notable cases of either sort to run a comparison? Companies are on average more likely to promote themselves than individuals, so it's not unlikely that an impartial algorithm would rate their notability higher more often than the reverse.

As for what such an algorithm might look like, I suppose it would not be dissimilar to search: determining whether e.g. "lush" is more likely to be associated with Mr. Lush or Lush Cosmetics, and making reassignments when the benefit seems particularly large.

Though if Google does use such an algorithm, it might not be wise for either Mr. Lush or Lush Cosmetics to bank on holding this custom YouTube URL, since someday an even more notable entity for the keyword might appear.

[orthecreedence]

Well, perhaps Lush Cosmetics bought it and doesn't want to own up to it now that there's a PR stink.

I understand that those URLs are Google's property to give out to whom it pleases, but the whole thing really stinks of some hidden deal between the two companies.

[AshFurrow]

Lush specified to the BBC that they didn't request the URL. They could be lying though.

[orthecreedence]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I think they lied about not actually wanting it, and they paid Google (err, asked the "algorithm" politely) to change the URL to their ownership.

[AshFurrow]

Could also be some social media intern asking, and now they're covering their tracks.

[cbd1984]

Or the BBC isn't a good source for technical news, because the reporters aren't specialists in the field?

[brazzledazzle]

How does someone articulate that without collapsing in shame?

[electic]

AND Lush said they didn't ask for it but also didn't say they would give it back. The whole thing is some mighty fine BS for sure.