Google: YouTube is so overloaded staff cannot filter content

&quot;Despite the serious threat posed by extreme and violent videos&quot;<p>Wait... what exactly is the THREAT of violent videos? The videos themselves aren&#x27;t dangerous, and removing them won&#x27;t stop the violence... what is portrayed in the video is the danger, not the fact that it was videoed.

Was curious so worked it out.<p>Assuming filter people work 40 hour week 50 weeks a year with near perfect efficiency.<p>(300<i>(60 </i> 24 * 365))&#x2F;2000 = 78840 people.<p>Of course it&#x27;s nowhere near that intractable as a simple reputation&#x2F;time based filter (is this account more than a month old, skip, does this user have a good reputation, skip) would bring that down hugely (and this assumes they watch 100% of each video).<p>In any case you are still at a good number of people.

When you&#x27;re systemically banning speech because it&#x27;s a &quot;threat&quot;... isn&#x27;t that literally, exactly, the same argument that every censorship regime in history has used in order to manipulate the public to support things it wouldn&#x27;t otherwise?<p>Isn&#x27;t China, Russia, Singpore, and everyone else pushing that same line? Are we going to tolerate it here?

When does a video do harm? How can you be harmed by watching a video? If you don&#x27;t like it, close your browser. If you don&#x27;t want your kids seeing it, using parental controls or watch them when they use the computer.<p>This just reeks of governments trying to impose censorship by using recent terror events as leverage.

However, if you were to post a clip from a copyright infringing song -- it gets removed immediately.

And why would they? Is this because they are (legally) obliged to filter content? If this is an actual problem then I suppose one way to deal with it is to either hire more staff or restrain the number of videos users can upload -- except the first one doesn&#x27;t scale and the second one will not be popular with YouTube users. And given that Google is all about doing everything they do at a massive scale, neither of the two suggestions fit their weltanschauung.

&gt; But when individuals flag up problems only a third of it is taken down.<p>Because they don&#x27;t give enough importance to these requests, or because many of the requests are invalid? If it&#x27;s the former, that&#x27;s something that content hosts should be held accountable for. If people flag stuff for you for free, you better use that information...

&quot;Can&#x27;t&quot;, I think they meant &quot;won&#x27;t&quot;. Google could hire a few more people easily.

This is an effort to fight ideas by suppression. My preference would be to fight ideas using other ideas.

Would s&#x2F;filter&#x2F;pre-filter&#x2F; make for a more accurate headline?

lol they&#x27;re &quot;overloaded&quot; yet they still find time to screw over musicians? stop being so evil google.

Wow, censorship is hard and has many related risks and costs to society.<p>I wonder if it&#x27;s worth it.