YouTube: Stricter comment moderation system
YouTube has been plagued by spam for quite some time. This is less obvious in small and medium-sized channels, but the larger ones, where each video can generate thousands of responses, have seen a clear increase in this type of publication in recent months, in which they try to deceive the rest of the users so that they fall into the traps set out in their publications in one way or another.
YouTube creators have become aware of this issue and, as a result, have begun releasing films explicitly exposing it, raising the question of whether YouTube intends to act in some way by strengthening its comment filtering system.
And it is the manual evaluation that causes two big issues. The first is the time it takes for harmful posts to be identified. The second reason is that beyond a certain volume of comments, that form of moderation becomes unaffordable.
And it is vital to note that the primary concern of YouTube content providers is the safety of their viewers or their audience.
When dealing with this, they concentrate on the number of spam accounts that resort to phishing, pretending to be the author of the video or have some affiliation with it, a trap that some users can fall into, resulting in them clicking on dangerous links sooner or later.
Thankfully, Google appears to have recognized receipt, and according to Marques Brownlee, a YouTuber afflicted by this issue, YouTube is now implementing a new comment filtering system, which, based on its description, limits the laxity with which potentially damaging remarks are reviewed.
The fact that this function, which is still in testing, has reached at least one of the YouTubers who have protested the issue appears to be a clear indication that the videos critical of it have reached the YouTube offices loud and clear.
Of course, it will be important to test it to see if it works as well as it could, or if spammers are able to bypass this new level of screening, and spam continues to roam the YouTube comments. Let's hope it's not the case.
