- there's a test accuracy of 99%
- 8 million items
- resulting in 8 (ie: 8m at 1/1m) false-negatives
...solve this equation for the "badness" rate
Fortunately we can plug this into the code and run it until we see ~ 8 "inaccurate:bad" results
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzndzAwWkAIOTpU.jpg)
They are trying to get #Article13 imposed on the internet for 0.01% of uploads.
Those 8 false-negatives (ie: infringers you missed) are balanced by about 80,000 false-positives (ie: innocent people you squelched)
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DznhDeBXgAE1dbJ.png)
- 7.9 million correct-and-proper non-infringing posts
- 80,000 erroneous takedowns of non-infringing content
- about 800 correct-and-proper takedowns
- 8 infringements missed
This is the true cost & impact of #Article13
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dzniiv9WoAASvt-.jpg)
Fortunately he gave it the correct name.
@crispinhunt wasn't entirely clear on the difference between the two figures, either.
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DznpPQrWkAE8Rj1.jpg)
'What if @crispinhunt was not mistaken, and was actually saying there were 8 false _positives_ on 8 million uploads?'
Well … with a 99% accuracy rate, that's not really feasible; the FP rate is a function of the test accuracy (cont…)
This is why I think @crispinhunt cited a correct number with its correct name, erroneously.
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DznuVvZWoAAVISZ.png)
- 80,000 appeals per day
- 4,800 appeal reviews per person per day
- 80000 / 4800 = 16.67 = 17 review staff on 8h shifts
Assume wage = $10/h
17 staff * 8 hours * $10 * 365 days/year == $496,400
So: about $500k in wages for content reviewers?
Say it takes 60 seconds / 1 minute per review; then your appeal-review wage cost is $5 million per annum.
This is literally the #Article13-lobby's proposed *mitigation* to machine-learning's failures.
In terms of spin, it's quite clever.
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzoSBbNWwAchp3s.jpg)
Secondly: the math suggests 80k errors PER DAY, and so we get annually: 80,000 * 365 = 29,200,000 erroneous takedowns.
- at what point
- in pursuit of prohibiting 0.01% of uploads
- in defence of protecting the copyright of less than 2 million artists
- does pissing-off up to* 29 million people per annum
…become acceptable?
* because statistical repeat-victims
1. degraded / sucky user experience
2. chilling effects on small business
3. reinforcement of the monopolies of big business which can afford this (because 2.)
4. opening the door to government censorship
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzsJ6STW0AAeNS0.jpg)
audiblemagic.com/why-audible-ma…
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzsJ7efXgAASuxJ.jpg)
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision…
and dataschool.io/simple-guide-t…
But is it plausible, realistic, good?
In the meantime, what's going on behind the scenes?