Coach Meighan (track) from middle school: “No matter how big the swimming pool, one turd floating past can ruin it.”
Good analogy. By happenstance I encountered a different analogy yesterday. Which I intended to share this morning. Thanks for setting my stage. 
I was going to a Mom-n-Pop eatery for breakfast. It’s in a small strip center with about 6 other generic retail businesses. There’s a row of nose-in parking spaces in front of the stores. I spot an empty space and begin to pull in.
That’s when I see the homeless dude sitting on the curb behind the space with his ragged shopping cart piled with possessions blocking the space. Oops. As homeless folks go this guy looked more ragged and listless than wild or dangerous. But still offputting. Even if he had not been blocking the space but was just hovering nearby I might well have chosen a different space.
There were other empty spaces not far away, so I parked there and was not much inconvenienced. Although I did park in the direction so I didn’t have to pass his space to get to the eatery door.
While eating I was thinking of this thread. I thought about what duty the restaurant workers, the manager, the owner, or the strip center owner owed to their customers to move this semi-offensive but probably harmless guy off their private property. Or more accurately, to call the cops to move the guy off the property. He wasn’t wrecking my meal, but he was damaging (for lack of a better word) the total experience of visiting that strip center.
Both the center and the tenants are there to make money. Just like the youtuber. If their surrounding environment (parking or comments) is being made off-putting by homeless or vandals or trolls, their own duty to their own bottom line begins to get into it. But how much?
I as a customer do not have the legal right to call the cops over the homeless dude until / unless he tries to harm me or my property. The right to complain of trespass attaches to the people who own or control the property. Not to passersby. Which is quite similar to the capability YouTube offers the audience: click [report] and hope somebody else makes something happen. Or just avert your eyes and step over / round the mess.
Oddly, for analogies, these work pretty well, I think.
I mean also ‘but you live here; that makes you the janitor’ isn’t a coherent statement.
Certainly it’s possible that the expressed concerns of visitors might inspire the resident (who probably already sympathises completely with the concern) to expend effort in trying to mitigate the problem, but ‘look, I know what you mean, and I care, but I’m already working two jobs and I don’t think I can fix the world for you’ is not an unreasonable stance.
If it’s my YouTube channel, everything posted in the comments section reflects on me. Opinions of taste will get to stay up as long as they are not ad hominem attacks. Opinions of politics may get to stay if I agree with them and if they’re tastefully expressed. Racism, homophobia, transphobia, and other hate speech will not be tolerated.
As I say, it’s my YouTube channel, and anything commented there reflects on me if I let it stay.
Not that I think this is an invalid view or anything (it’s more or less how I manage it myself, at the moment), but suppose the channel grows to the point that you simply don’t have enough hours in your day to do that, will you consider it worth employing a team of moderators so that the job still gets done?
Regardless of the line of work, every one-person business has the issue that if they keep growing, at some point the one person can’t do the work, and sell the work, and bill for the work, and buy the supplies and … At which point more workers are needed to do some parts of some tasks. Or they must stop growing.
Youtubing is (probably) no different. At some point you need moderators, or you need copywriters or you need recording & post-production help or better (read cuter) on-screen talent or …
It’s also not uncommon that businesses which cross that size threshold are less profitable for awhile because the smallest increment of employee labor they can get is at first more than they need, or at least more than that person’s marginal productivity can return. If the business successfully crosses that “valley of death” they are now on a growth trajectory not limited by the owner’s personal productivity, but by the owner’s ability to manage the personal productivity of others.
How that maps onto the effort/reward (read cost of sales versus sales) ratio of youtubing is a mystery to me. But the issue is out there.
Sure, but I think also in that transition from one-person-operation to corporate entity, some ‘nice to have’ things probably often get discarded.
Yes, it’s that important to me to maintain my ‘brand’ (although I hate expressions like ‘brand’ and ‘content’!).
Though let’s be completely honest - you’re proposing a hypothetical that’s about as likely as me growing a third arm!
Many of the channels I subscribe to, many somewhat controversial, have thousands of comments within hours of a video being posted. Some are trolls, some are just stupid. The creators sometimes mention comments attacking them, but I’ve rarely seen any. Still, obnoxious comments are expected in these channels, and spending more time removing them means less time for content creation. Since that is the job of these creators, it would hit them right in the pocket book.
And, btw, it seems YouTube is well know for randomly deleting comments, sometimes for no apparent cause.
So I don’t expect a creator to do much, except maybe just minutes after the video goes live, when the creator likes or comments on some posts. Days after - no.
Maybe this is a good application for AI. You should be able to train it on trolls. We’ll see.
How about if you’re the landlord - do you have an obligation to remove racist, violence-promoting graffiti on the premises?
Or can you legitimately say that you’re too busy with other duties to bother?
I’d say the argument is a lot stronger for that being the landlord’s responsibility than the tenant’s. I’m still not absolutely certain that it would be an obligation. If it were an obligation and it was neglected, what penalty would be imposed, and by what authority?
As I understand it, the typical journey for YouTubers whose channel grows is that they just gradually become less and less present in the comments section, either because it becomes unmanageable for them to maintain a presence there, or often because they have by that point set up their own community discussion venue (e.g. on Discord or similar) and all of their interaction happens there, and that somewhat-walled community has its own set of standards.
Interacting with the comments section just doesn’t always seem to scale up for a lot of YouTubers and is instead discarded along the way.
Some channels appear to have a really stable core of loyal, active, sane followers, some of whom volunteer to help moderate the channel’s comments section.
No. It may be the nice thing to do but you aren’t obligated to do it. The difference is that you can’t help but see graffiti in your analogy while on YouTube you aren’t forced to see or read the comments. You can ignore them completely and just watch the videos.
I’m not sure that’s a very meaningful difference, but it’s an analogy, so it’s bound to differ in some ways. But then, you’re not forced to watch the videos either; nobody is forced to do anything.
Yeah, and oddly, the YouTube Studio UI gives comment moderators access to a function that isn’t available to the channel owner; a channel owner can report a comment (which will result in that comment being removed or hidden), and also the owner can ban a user - which will automatically hide all of their comments including previous ones, but only moderators have the facility to send a comment to the quarantine (like ‘hide it for now without deleting it completely’).
This analogy only works for me if you’re the one unlocking the door allowing the graffiti artists in - by which I mean, comments don’t have to be enabled for a video. By enabling comments, you have a duty of care to police them, IMO.
If the channel grows to where that’s viable from a cost point, then yes. Hell, I’m pretty sure for channels that big, there are fans of the channel who would do it for free, I mean, that’s how it works here.
Comments are enabled by default; you have to disable them if you don’t want them.
Also, comments pretty much do have to be enabled, because engagement via comments is a vital metric for the algorithm that drives recommendations. Disabling comments is asking for the channel to take a nose-dive. It’s not really a choice.
Distinction without difference - by leaving the default setting, you enable them.
If the metrics matter enough for a channel, then it’s worth the channel owner policing the comments, is how I see it.
The distinction is that it’s not like explicitly unlocking a door; it’s absolutely the norm for the comments to be enabled.
It’s probably where the analogy breaks down; but then… not all apartment blocks have locks to keep people out of the lobby and hallways anyway.