YouTube's Inane Response To Handing Popular YouTuber's Channel To Cosmetics Company: Blame The Algorithms

from the the-algorithms-did-it dept

Another day, another big tech company doing things wrong. Matthew Lush is apparently a super popular YouTuber, who has been on the platform since 2005 (yes, a decade ago). His YouTube name was "Lush" which makes sense, given that's his name. But along comes Lush Cosmetics, and YouTube apparently just hands his channel over to the company. That's ridiculous enough, but it gets even more bizarre, when reporters asked Google to explain:
Google said it was "sympathetic" to Mr Lush's situation and that the decision was made by an algorithm.
Oh, come on. Yes, Google pointing to its algorithm making decisions makes sense when it comes to issues at scale around things like search results. But blaming taking away someone's username on an algorithm just seems ridiculous.

And then there's this:
[Lush Cometics] told the BBC it had not requested the change but would not say if it would give the address back.
Okay. So let's just work through this:
  1. Matthew Lush registers his YouTube name "Lush" in 2005.
  2. He spends years building up a massive following.
  3. A decade later, a cosmetic company that did not ask for it is simply given Matthew Lush's popular YouTube username, based on "an algorithm" deciding this.
  4. And Google insists there's no way to fix this.
Really? Yes, I know some people fear that science-fiction future in which the giant AI in the sky makes algorithmic decisions about what's best for us ("I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"), but I hadn't thought we were quite there yet. Because we're not.

It seems likely that what's missing from the BBC story is that there was some sort of naming conflict brought on by the various attemps to shift around YouTube naming conventions, integrate it with Google+ and all of that. In the end, there was probably some sort of conflict with two "Lush" usernames, and Google's "algorithms" gave the account to the cosmetics company instead. At least that's my interpretation of this statement:
Google said its algorithm decided which address Lush Cosmetics was given, based on data from YouTube, Google+, its search engine and other sources.
But if that's the case, at the very last, Google could be a lot clearer and upfront about it. And it seems to be a mess brought on by the company's own decisions about its username conventions. To play it off as just "well, those nutty algorithms again, nothing can be done" seems pretty ridiculous.

Filed Under: algorithms, customer service, matthew lush, names, user names, youtube
Companies: google, lush cosmetics, youtube


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Socrates, 25 Jun 2015 @ 1:26am

    Value

    IMHO, the exchange have value as a mean to pool enough money to make larger investments than individual participants would have been able too. It also lowers the barrier to be a part owner of something.

    Using the stock price to assess value is common but flawed. Just look at the Icelandic crisis as proof. The brokers deliberately sold stocks at elevated prices back and forth to lend money. The Icelandic citizens were forced to foot the bill even though they had nothing to do with the "game", and would not have seen a dime of the "profit".

    Just as it may help a corporation when its stock price bulls, it may just as easily harm a corporation. And worse, it may be used deliberately to dip a corporation into problems that is completely unrelated to its operations, and then slaughter the corporation and looting the employees pension funds. This is legal, common, and immensely harmful.

    Look at how the Norwegian national pension fund is managed. The brokers promise to not take unnecessary risks, but operate in a mono-polar risk profile, where they get a massive bonus if the stock soars and get no penalty if it crashes. This is common and contribute to large scale economic crisis in the western world.

    Look at what actual real-world "high value" brokers do, like Carl Icahn. Look at what methods he used to loot Trans World Airlines (TWA), Howard Hughes airline. Look at how he bought stock in Apple and then cajoled and forced Apple to increase buyback to inflate the stock price. He is still at it.

    The exchange have its place as long as it is kept in its place, but it is a less useful tool when the government is such a tool.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.