<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>supernintendo</author><text>I just assumed it was common knowledge that Google doesn’t even try to implement human support resources. From what I can tell, literally 100% of YouTube support tickets go to what is essentially a spam inbox with auto-reply and the only way to have your concerns be dealt with is to have a personal connection to someone in upper management.</text><parent_chain><item><author>ALittleLight</author><text>I think fixing popular &amp;quot;mistakes&amp;quot; like this is problematic in its own way.  Google&amp;#x2F;YouTube approach the problem of moderation by using unreliable systems and correcting mistakes when there is enough of a popular outrage.  The problem is, people who can&amp;#x27;t generate the outrage are subject to Google&amp;#x27;s poor moderation.&lt;p&gt;If Google did not fix mistakes that generated a lot of outrage, then competitors could differentiate themselves by providing better moderation policies and whenever some popular account got banned from YouTube that would generate a lot of traffic for alternatives.  As is, if something popular gets banned, YouTube will &amp;quot;correct&amp;quot; their error while they ignore things below this threshold.  This simultaneously subjects everyone to their poor moderation and stifles an advantage that competitors might enjoy.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>YouTube reinstates Right Wing Watch</title><url>https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/youtube-reinstates-channel-devoted-exposing-conservative-extremism-rcna1286</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>asdfasgasdgasdg</author><text>I mean, it&amp;#x27;s pretty obvious why they don&amp;#x27;t do that. The only people that would benefit by such a policy are not stakeholders in the decision. All actual stakeholders (Google, the banned channel, and YouTube users who want to watch the content) benefit from a policy that use social and manual signals as one layer of defense against incorrect bans.</text><parent_chain><item><author>ALittleLight</author><text>I think fixing popular &amp;quot;mistakes&amp;quot; like this is problematic in its own way.  Google&amp;#x2F;YouTube approach the problem of moderation by using unreliable systems and correcting mistakes when there is enough of a popular outrage.  The problem is, people who can&amp;#x27;t generate the outrage are subject to Google&amp;#x27;s poor moderation.&lt;p&gt;If Google did not fix mistakes that generated a lot of outrage, then competitors could differentiate themselves by providing better moderation policies and whenever some popular account got banned from YouTube that would generate a lot of traffic for alternatives.  As is, if something popular gets banned, YouTube will &amp;quot;correct&amp;quot; their error while they ignore things below this threshold.  This simultaneously subjects everyone to their poor moderation and stifles an advantage that competitors might enjoy.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>YouTube reinstates Right Wing Watch</title><url>https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/youtube-reinstates-channel-devoted-exposing-conservative-extremism-rcna1286</url></story>