YouTube Flagged The Notre Dame Fire As Misinformation And Then Started Showing People An Article About 9/11

30 comments

  1. Daax865

    |Author

    I swear YouTube has slowly gone to shit since 2014, when Susan Wojcicki became the CEO. That company is so out of touch with the original idea that they have become a mentally delayed pestilence upon their own brand. Susan Wojcicki is a parasite clinging to the outer wall of YouTube’s spirit, sucking the life away. It used to be the greatest thing ever, and now I get recommended Kevin Hart videos because I watch stuff about ancient history and pocket knife reviews. What the fuck.

  2. namezam

    |Author

    “The moderation of YouTube livestreams has been a problem for the platform.” Just a single understated sentence about one of the biggest problems the internet has.

  3. msuozzo

    |Author

    How is this that much of an issue? It’s clearly a mistake and few humans would really take it seriously. There are people in the thread making it seem like this is censorship or malice somehow.

    If these sorts of quickly-corrected, transient errors are the cost of a better-moderated platform, I’d hope everyone would be able to swallow their dead horse beating instincts and live with it.

  4. Kwaker76

    |Author

    I wonder if it’s anything to do with several channels covering the unfolding events referring to the two bell towers of Notre Dame as the twin towers?
    Also one witness I saw interviewed on Sky News at the scene referred to Notre Dame as “ground zero”.
    Would the YouTubes algorithm pick up on these sort of references?

  5. Alblaka

    |Author

    A for intention, but C for effort.

    From an IT perspective, it’s pretty funny to watch that algorythm trying to do it’s job and failing horribly.

    That said, honestly, give the devs behind it a break, noone’s made a perfect AI yet, and it’s actually pretty admireable that it realized the videos were showing ‘a tower on fire’, came to the conclusion it must be related to 9/11 and then added links to what’s probably a trusted source on the topic to combat potential misinformation.

    It’s a very sound idea (especially because it doesn’t censor any information, just points our what it considers to be a more credible source),

    it just isn’t working out that well. Yet.

  6. Ravavyr

    |Author

    All the hate comments here, from people who don’t understand how automated systems work.
    This ONE false-positive…is because they do millions of accurate detections every month to protect your gentle eyes.

    Things go wrong with tech every so often, but it’s far less often than it goes wrong with actual humans behind the wheel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.