Comments by "LoneTech" (@0LoneTech) on "Why youtube's manual review process STILL falsely flags videos!" video.

  1. A classic "goddag yxskaft" example. As the classic Swedish tale goes, there was a man carving an axe handle as he saw a stranger come walking down he road. This man was hard of hearing, so he made some guesses as to what the stranger would ask, and so their dialogue went like this: "Good day!" "Axe handles." (He'll probably ask what I'm making.) "The rye is tall this year." "Four miles." (And how far it is to town.) "Aren't you a bit twisted?" "To the left." (And which way to turn at the branch in the road.)
    11
  2. I'd guess the reviewers have no incentive to check the video properly, so the whole purpose of the review process is spoiled by paying them for the wrong thing (e.g. processing many cases or giving firm replies, even if wrong).
    3
  3. Sadly, the news to me is that someone got a clue why youtube messed with their posting. Also, checking five seconds of audio may not be enough, because the reviewer is seeded; compare e.g. laurel/yanny or the talking piano, and consider the reviewer will have a foreign accent to boot. When they go in expecting an "n-word", they may be unable to hear bigger, trigger or figure. Worse, the injection of the bad word is negative bias on the captioning bot, and this parody of a review process is reinforcing it rather than fixing it.
    1