11 ms·

Google, Facebook quietly move toward automatic blocking of “extremist” videos

68 points by Jerry2 10y ago

putaside 10y ago
Google, Facebook, and especially Twitter are used by terrorist organisations for recruitment and propaganda. These videos brainwash young people into hatred of the west, incite them to leave their countries to go join a war that is not theirs, polarize, and are directly responsible for suicide attacks. Sure, information wants to be free, and all that cyberpunk jazz. At what cost? Apparently at the cost of innocent lives. These companies are directly responsible for giving these terrorists a platform. The free speech-apologists are indirectly responsible for fostering fertile ground for these terrorists. Yes... blocking this information will also block innocent information. But I rather see that, than see more innocent lives lost. I say: chase them underground. This makes more clear the difference between a real jihadist with bad intentions, and a pious person slowly being brainwashed, because their feeds show nothing but dead children being pulled from rubble, Anwar al-Awlaki propaganda, and anti-Semitic hoaxes.
- vonklaus 10y ago
  interesting. I would never make this trade and find it horrifying. > This makes more clear the difference between a real jihadist with bad intentions, and a pious person slowly being brainwashed While I respect you view it this way, I have trouble believing this is even slightly reminiscient of reality. You seem to imply that if not for terrorist propaganda on twitter, "pious" people would not be terrorists. I suspect this is an outlandish strawman devoid of any substance. > At what cost? Apparently at the cost of innocent lives. This has always been the cost. Many people have knowingly given their lives for such ideals. Certainly private corporations have the freedom and latitude to make their own decisions, however, there is a reason freedom of speech was built into the bill of rights. edit: it was indicated that driving them underground was considered positive, I would also like to respectfully disagree. If we accept this is where the "real" terrorists are congregating (online communities) having them remain in plain view and analyzing their recruitment and propaganda techniques would likely be a high leverage option.
  - putaside 10y ago
    When "normal" citizens can find instructions on how to create IED's and pipe bombs on the surface internet, something is very very wrong. This is what causes naive easily-influenced youth to radicalize. They do not even have to seek it out on the deep web, their social feeds are filled with such extremist content. Then when the police confiscates their computer and finds Inspire magazine on there, they are branded a terrorist and face jail. While there is a difference between curious rebellious youth and hardcore jihadists, it's very murky when there is such easy access to real damaging stuff. Driving them underground would make anyone seeking them out a solid suspect. Right now innocent bystanders are confronted with their propaganda and may give in (whereas normally they never would). I know these are American companies, but they are used world-wide. The bill of rights and American standards of free speech do not have to apply everywhere though. Europe faces the consequences of this unbridled free speech. You want free (hate) speech? Fine. Create your own website and host your own content. Don't (ab)use these big companies who hide behind our-algo's-could-not-find-it and do not take their responsibility, because they have so many users they can never police them all. Real terrorists use both the surface web (for recruitment and propaganda) and the underground web (for planning attacks). No smart terrorist uses the surface web for planning. The damage of surface web propaganda far exceeds the damage of having no intel on surface web propaganda.
    - vonklaus 10y ago
      > When "normal" citizens can find instructions on how to create IED's and pipe bombs on the surface internet, something is very very wrong. I disagree. In the extremely unlikely event I have to disarm an IED I would like to be able to google this from my mobile. I also own a copy of the anarchist cookbook, and I have for about a decade (acquired around age 16). To date, I have not committed any acts of terrorism. > This is what causes naive easily-influenced youth to radicalize. They do not even have to seek it out on the deep web, their social feeds are filled with such extremist content. If being aware of (or actually downloading) torbrowser was the only impediment to terrorism with an IED I would be very uncomfortable. Luckily, I do not accept your appraisal of the situation. > Driving them underground would make anyone seeking them out a solid suspect. If we accept that interacting with terrorist online should make you a suspect, surely having them be easily accessibly would help lop off the low hanging fruit. I don't actually believe this would be a great course of action, but the logic of keeping terrorists (and potential terrorists) in plain sight is largely pretty sound. Also, how would we verify who was seeking out these terrorists if channels of communication are largely asynchronous and offline as well as executed with varying degrees of obfuscation? > The bill of rights and American standards of free speech do not have to apply everywhere though. Correct. I indicated they do not have to follow the bill of rights, it is a bill of rights garunteed to be provided by the U.S. Government to its citizenry. However, the point I was making is that many sovereign nations allow for free speech because it is fundamentally important. So important, it is at the cornerstone of the culture of a young and extremely prosperous nation: America. edit: I respectfully disagree with almost every comment you have made. I don't want to levy an accusation that you are somehow complicit (or actively involved) in perpetuating myths about terrorism, free speech and the tornetwork but if you are not, I find your rhetoric painfully ignorant.
- rahkiin 10y ago
  That first paragraph... What if you would replace 'the west' with 'the islam'? Let's replace 'terrorist organizations' with 'organizations with weapons'. Bear with me. Then it essentially says google, facebook etc are used by military for recruitment for fighting with violence against an opposing view (sorry for my english). Isn't that what western countries do as well? What I mean to say, the difference is very hard to make. Essentially you are removing any content that opposes your (whoever pulls the string) political or religious views. And with the popularity of YT, FB and Twitter, I think that is worth thinking about. What happens if there is a conflict within a western country, whose side are those sites on? I want to note, for anyone reading this, I do absolutely not condone any actions by any terrorist organizations nor their recruitment methods, at all, and I happily have not seen any of thise horrible videos. I just don't like the western hypocricy.
  - putaside 10y ago
    It is not about attacking/opposing political views, it is about attacking/opposing hate speech and inciting violence. If hate speech also happens to be a political view, then too bad. Yes, Western countries are also guilty of propaganda. But they are a bit more subtle about it and do not go over the edge as often. That edge is: (inciting) violence. This could be qualified as extremist content (if one were to be as objective as possible): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNCUeItvovs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNCUeItvovs And I would be ok if that were removed.
    - rahkiin 10y ago
      I do agree the west is more subtle. But aren't some westerners calling up 'getting rid of the islam/muslims' and that sorts? When does such qualify as hate speech? I just don't know :(
      - cpncrunch 10y ago
        Well, Trump isn't saying we should kill them, only deport them. I think that is objectionable, but I don't think it meets the criteria for hate speech. There is obviously a line, and Trump hasn't quite crossed it yet.
- ohthehugemanate 10y ago
  So, a founding thought pattern of liberal democracy is that we prefer to allow some false negatives rather than punishing false positives. In justice, we prefer to let some bad people walk free, than to wrongfully imprison. Hence habeas corpus. In privacy, we prefer to let some people do bad things in secret, rather than violate one innocent person's privacy. Hence warrant requirements. In speech, we prefer to let some assholes say/print terrible things, rather than let one innocent thought be censored. Hence free press. This was cutting edge stuff in the late 1700s, and seemed to be a major model in the 1800s. But I wonder how much it still applies, given how much the world has changed. It certainly seems like these principles are no longer in favor. Most countries have limitations on free speech ("hate speech" laws), no warrant protections on digital privacy, and even limitations on habeas corpus ("terrorist" special cases). So when Facebook research demonstrated that algorithmic changes can influence people's actions (voting, positive posts, etc), a common response was "wow that's a lot of power. I hope the use it responsibly." The implication was "in favor of liberal democratic values". Well, maybe we DON'T want liberal democratic values any more. Your comment clearly expresses a common mindset, that we don't want the risks that come with those values. I guess what I'm trying to say can be summed up with "i for one welcome our new algorithmic overlords."
- unfathomable 10y ago
  > Google, Facebook, and especially Twitter are used by terrorist organisations for recruitment and propaganda. These videos brainwash young people into hatred of the west, incite them to leave their countries to go join a war that is not theirs, polarize, and are directly responsible for suicide attacks. You could say the same thing about middle eastern war movies propagated by media corporations and military contracts in order to create a stereotypical image of cultures across the seas. In an attempt to sign up more military and invade formerly sovereign middle eastern nations.
jimmywanger 10y ago
One man's "extremist" video is another man's political views. Where does it stop? Does a video supporting Trump become an extremist video if enough people complain about it? What about a video that shows you how to take apart a pistol for cleaning?
- tamana 10y ago
  These walled gardens have have TOSes. Extremist or political, content that violates TOS gets taken down .
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    From the Facebook TOS, and YouTube's is much the same, with different, more casual verbiage: You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user. You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence. That is such a broad swathe that any unpopular opinion can get disqualified. Is me posting a video of how to sharpen a kitchen knife threatening? Or someone advocating that the Civil War should have never happened because of the right of states to withdraw from the Union? We need the freedom of speech to protect unpopular opinions, not popular ones.
    - caseysoftware 10y ago
      Or as US Supreme Court Justice Stewart said: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it That was in reference to identifying "hardcore pornography" but seems appropriate in talking about hate speech, threats, bullying, and a variety of other issues.
    - dave2000 10y ago
      They need broad rules because whatever rule you come up with, some clown is going to try and get around it. Or just post something obviously against the spirit of the rules then argue about it. Users don't have a stake in Facebook, YouTube etc, but the companies running them do. They'd probably all prefer to just have "don't be a dick" but we live in a world full of pedants and lawyers and professional irritants so by having something a little more concrete it preempts a lot of rather tedious complaints. If you're a rebel prophet with something exciting to say then no-ones stopping you paying a small amount of money for a domain name and hosting and away you go. If you can't do that then I'd agree there's censorship and there's a problem. Other than that, you should have absolutely no expectation that other people are going to do the heavy lifting for you, whether that's paying for your hosting/bandwidth, or taking the heat when users, advertisers etc complain about your content.
exstudent2 10y ago
I wonder what it is they hope to accomplish by blocking this type of content. One could argue that what actually happens is a Streisand effect that promotes the views these companies are attempting to squash. My belief is that movements like Trump are a direct effect of overreaching censorship by the left which has essentially created a new right wing movement due to people backlashing against left wing media shaping. In short, if the ideas are truly terrible they should be left viewable to everyone since they'll only turn people off. It's when you hide things that people become curious as to why the content is powerful enough to require censorship.
- dave2000 10y ago
  If by "extremist content" you mean religious fanatics beheading people, or calling people to arms, or giving tips on producing bombs or whatever, then you are entitled to treat this as "unpopular ideas" which "need defending in a free society" or whatever, but don't be surprised if sane, rational people take a somewhat different view and decide they don't want to spread hatred, nor leave themselves open to lawsuits for the honour of hosting this content for free. All companies like to talk about fostering freedom or whatever, but as organisations which exist to make profit it's partly because censorship costs them money, and also the more content they have, the more of a surface they have to make money from. They don't really give a shit about you or your freedom, and there's precious little internal conflict about whether to host this months crop of terrorist atrocities.
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    Parent comment didn't say they were ideas that "need defending in a free society", or anything about freedom. He just said that censoring them might have negative consequences. I don't know if it's correct in this case. But I know that in general, people see censorship as validation of the ideas being censored, and also as a rallying flag for something to be angry about.
  - exstudent2 10y ago
    I'm not talking about videos of beheadings (although there's a case for keeping things like that around too to help educate people). I'm talking about suppression of everyday right wing viewpoints. Things like this: http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006 http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-supp... For context, I'm not right-wing myself but absolutely object to censoring content based on political viewpoints such as this.
vonklaus 10y ago
I think an important point which is related is that these companies control information. DMCA requests and the companies issuing them have become much more sophisticated. The joke is that Bing is much better for porn. However, I personally have noticed many files, images and other media have completely disappeared from google results. The amount of information on the internet is of course staggering, but no one seems concerned that it is accessed through a very tightly controlled pipeline. edit: not sure how anyone could disagree that the english speaking internet is almost exclusively controlled by google and (to a lesser extent Microsoft). Chrome and Edge/Explorer have ~67% of browser market share and google has ~75% SE market share while bing has ~7%. 2 companies collectively control the environment and on ramp to the english speaking internet. Facebook (and now microsoft with the purchase of linkedin) as well as google control the bulk of people's online identitites.
LargeCompanies 10y ago
Not sure if this a good thing they would just move further underground vs. allowing it to continue and flag these accounts/send notice to law enforcement and the FBI. They supposedly track us anyway hopefully they are tracking these degenerates more then sally sue saying how much she loves joe weiner.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
j3FF3ry 10y ago
I have never came across any extremist video on facebook, youtube or even twitter. Maybe if I was actually searching for it I could find it? What sort of terms would one use?
alexqgb 10y ago
As others have noted, the issue is that so many political terms are relative (e.g., the way 'terrorist' is applied to Middle-Easterners far more swiftly and casually than Americans who are equally violent for very similar reasons.) An organization doing what Google and Facebook are doing must therefore (a) clearly articulate the position on which their judgments are based (b) openly assert that their position is fundamentally superior and preferable to the moral order that accepts the practices that are being suppressed (c) provide a open and defensible argument for selecting one set of values while forcefully rejecting another and (d) be willing to modify this position in the event that fatal contradictions appear, or excessively negative consequences result. In short, these platforms must not just govern, but do so from a well-considered and articulated philosophy of liberal governance. Fortunately, they need not start from scratch. There is an abundance of data to support the idea that nations that have broadly inclusive economies with widely and equitably representative policy making bodies are the most prosperous, stable, and desirable places to live. (For details, see "Why Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466900793&sr=8-1&keywords=why+nations+fail https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/d...) By adopting for themselves the governing principles that underpin the most successful societies, Internet platforms can become greater forces for good. At the same time this empirically grounded approach will better shield them from maliciously self-serving people who want to see political and economic power concentrated in the kinds of small and closed sets of hands (specifically, theirs). As any number of examples from Egypt to Russia to Venezuela to Zimbabwe have shown, those who dominate closed economies and the political systems that reinforce each other invariably make life a living hell for everyone. To the extent that these systems are maintained by way of retrograde social norms, any platform committed to a more open, just society should have no qualms about disarming those who view civil society as anathema.
Animats 10y ago
What's "extremist"? Dabiq?[1] Stormfront? Donald Trump? The National Rifle Association? Fox News? It's worth reading Dabiq to hear what ISIS has to say. Know your enemy. They're quite clear about wanting to kill everyone who doesn't support their strict interpretation of Islam. (ISIS cannot have allies; they consider that religiously prohibited.) The latest issue also includes a long article about why the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has abandoned strict Islam and is now an enemy. None of this is likely to recruit anybody who isn't already a fanatic of some kind. Unfortunately, there are those in search of something to be fanatical about. Even if they can turn only 0.004% of the population into fighters for their cause (that's roughly their recruiting success rate in the Western world), that's a success for them. Dabiq mentions their 10 videos for this month, and searches for them turn up articles about them, but not playable versions of the videos. Even the one linked to "archive.org" isn't coming up. Unclear if this is censorship. [1] https://www.clarionproject.org/docs/Dabiq-Issue-14.pdf https://www.clarionproject.org/docs/Dabiq-Issue-14.pdf
- downandout 10y ago
  What's "extremist"? Dabiq?[1] Stormfront? Donald Trump? The National Rifle Association? Fox News I think its pretty simple. If a given group has ever claimed responsibility for, expressed the intention to commit, or publicly praised, a terrorist act against civilians, that's an extremist group. Whatever can be done to block their communications with the rest of the world should be done. It's no mystery as to who they are - they're very public about it. The same kind of analysis should be done for individuals that desire to enter the US or non-residents already visiting the US. "Oh, you were on Facebook saying how the guy in Orlando was a hero? Sorry, time to go home."
  - dpc59 10y ago
    People protesting against austerity and gentrification have broken windows of banks and stores. Is this terrorism since in the end civilians own those? If it is where do you draw the line on censorship of the people who want the same things but were never involved in those crimes against property?
tdkl 10y ago
"Boohoo, I want to feel safe in my safespace and don't feel icky feelings" - modern Internet user
dforrestwilson 10y ago
Equivalent to pretending that Hitler never existed.

68 points by Jerry2 10y ago

Google, Facebook, and especially Twitter are used by terrorist organisations for recruitment and propaganda. These videos brainwash young people into hatred of the west, incite them to leave their countries to go join a war that is not theirs, polarize, and are directly responsible for suicide attacks. Sure, information wants to be free, and all that cyberpunk jazz. At what cost? Apparently at the cost of innocent lives. These companies are directly responsible for giving these terrorists a platform. The free speech-apologists are indirectly responsible for fostering fertile ground for these terrorists. Yes... blocking this information will also block innocent information. But I rather see that, than see more innocent lives lost. I say: chase them underground. This makes more clear the difference between a real jihadist with bad intentions, and a pious person slowly being brainwashed, because their feeds show nothing but dead children being pulled from rubble, Anwar al-Awlaki propaganda, and anti-Semitic hoaxes.

vonklaus 10y ago
interesting. I would never make this trade and find it horrifying. > This makes more clear the difference between a real jihadist with bad intentions, and a pious person slowly being brainwashed While I respect you view it this way, I have trouble believing this is even slightly reminiscient of reality. You seem to imply that if not for terrorist propaganda on twitter, "pious" people would not be terrorists. I suspect this is an outlandish strawman devoid of any substance. > At what cost? Apparently at the cost of innocent lives. This has always been the cost. Many people have knowingly given their lives for such ideals. Certainly private corporations have the freedom and latitude to make their own decisions, however, there is a reason freedom of speech was built into the bill of rights. edit: it was indicated that driving them underground was considered positive, I would also like to respectfully disagree. If we accept this is where the "real" terrorists are congregating (online communities) having them remain in plain view and analyzing their recruitment and propaganda techniques would likely be a high leverage option.
- putaside 10y ago
  When "normal" citizens can find instructions on how to create IED's and pipe bombs on the surface internet, something is very very wrong. This is what causes naive easily-influenced youth to radicalize. They do not even have to seek it out on the deep web, their social feeds are filled with such extremist content. Then when the police confiscates their computer and finds Inspire magazine on there, they are branded a terrorist and face jail. While there is a difference between curious rebellious youth and hardcore jihadists, it's very murky when there is such easy access to real damaging stuff. Driving them underground would make anyone seeking them out a solid suspect. Right now innocent bystanders are confronted with their propaganda and may give in (whereas normally they never would). I know these are American companies, but they are used world-wide. The bill of rights and American standards of free speech do not have to apply everywhere though. Europe faces the consequences of this unbridled free speech. You want free (hate) speech? Fine. Create your own website and host your own content. Don't (ab)use these big companies who hide behind our-algo's-could-not-find-it and do not take their responsibility, because they have so many users they can never police them all. Real terrorists use both the surface web (for recruitment and propaganda) and the underground web (for planning attacks). No smart terrorist uses the surface web for planning. The damage of surface web propaganda far exceeds the damage of having no intel on surface web propaganda.
  - vonklaus 10y ago
    > When "normal" citizens can find instructions on how to create IED's and pipe bombs on the surface internet, something is very very wrong. I disagree. In the extremely unlikely event I have to disarm an IED I would like to be able to google this from my mobile. I also own a copy of the anarchist cookbook, and I have for about a decade (acquired around age 16). To date, I have not committed any acts of terrorism. > This is what causes naive easily-influenced youth to radicalize. They do not even have to seek it out on the deep web, their social feeds are filled with such extremist content. If being aware of (or actually downloading) torbrowser was the only impediment to terrorism with an IED I would be very uncomfortable. Luckily, I do not accept your appraisal of the situation. > Driving them underground would make anyone seeking them out a solid suspect. If we accept that interacting with terrorist online should make you a suspect, surely having them be easily accessibly would help lop off the low hanging fruit. I don't actually believe this would be a great course of action, but the logic of keeping terrorists (and potential terrorists) in plain sight is largely pretty sound. Also, how would we verify who was seeking out these terrorists if channels of communication are largely asynchronous and offline as well as executed with varying degrees of obfuscation? > The bill of rights and American standards of free speech do not have to apply everywhere though. Correct. I indicated they do not have to follow the bill of rights, it is a bill of rights garunteed to be provided by the U.S. Government to its citizenry. However, the point I was making is that many sovereign nations allow for free speech because it is fundamentally important. So important, it is at the cornerstone of the culture of a young and extremely prosperous nation: America. edit: I respectfully disagree with almost every comment you have made. I don't want to levy an accusation that you are somehow complicit (or actively involved) in perpetuating myths about terrorism, free speech and the tornetwork but if you are not, I find your rhetoric painfully ignorant.
rahkiin 10y ago
That first paragraph... What if you would replace 'the west' with 'the islam'? Let's replace 'terrorist organizations' with 'organizations with weapons'. Bear with me. Then it essentially says google, facebook etc are used by military for recruitment for fighting with violence against an opposing view (sorry for my english). Isn't that what western countries do as well? What I mean to say, the difference is very hard to make. Essentially you are removing any content that opposes your (whoever pulls the string) political or religious views. And with the popularity of YT, FB and Twitter, I think that is worth thinking about. What happens if there is a conflict within a western country, whose side are those sites on? I want to note, for anyone reading this, I do absolutely not condone any actions by any terrorist organizations nor their recruitment methods, at all, and I happily have not seen any of thise horrible videos. I just don't like the western hypocricy.
- putaside 10y ago
  It is not about attacking/opposing political views, it is about attacking/opposing hate speech and inciting violence. If hate speech also happens to be a political view, then too bad. Yes, Western countries are also guilty of propaganda. But they are a bit more subtle about it and do not go over the edge as often. That edge is: (inciting) violence. This could be qualified as extremist content (if one were to be as objective as possible): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNCUeItvovs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNCUeItvovs And I would be ok if that were removed.
  - rahkiin 10y ago
    I do agree the west is more subtle. But aren't some westerners calling up 'getting rid of the islam/muslims' and that sorts? When does such qualify as hate speech? I just don't know :(
    - cpncrunch 10y ago
      Well, Trump isn't saying we should kill them, only deport them. I think that is objectionable, but I don't think it meets the criteria for hate speech. There is obviously a line, and Trump hasn't quite crossed it yet.
ohthehugemanate 10y ago
So, a founding thought pattern of liberal democracy is that we prefer to allow some false negatives rather than punishing false positives. In justice, we prefer to let some bad people walk free, than to wrongfully imprison. Hence habeas corpus. In privacy, we prefer to let some people do bad things in secret, rather than violate one innocent person's privacy. Hence warrant requirements. In speech, we prefer to let some assholes say/print terrible things, rather than let one innocent thought be censored. Hence free press. This was cutting edge stuff in the late 1700s, and seemed to be a major model in the 1800s. But I wonder how much it still applies, given how much the world has changed. It certainly seems like these principles are no longer in favor. Most countries have limitations on free speech ("hate speech" laws), no warrant protections on digital privacy, and even limitations on habeas corpus ("terrorist" special cases). So when Facebook research demonstrated that algorithmic changes can influence people's actions (voting, positive posts, etc), a common response was "wow that's a lot of power. I hope the use it responsibly." The implication was "in favor of liberal democratic values". Well, maybe we DON'T want liberal democratic values any more. Your comment clearly expresses a common mindset, that we don't want the risks that come with those values. I guess what I'm trying to say can be summed up with "i for one welcome our new algorithmic overlords."
unfathomable 10y ago
> Google, Facebook, and especially Twitter are used by terrorist organisations for recruitment and propaganda. These videos brainwash young people into hatred of the west, incite them to leave their countries to go join a war that is not theirs, polarize, and are directly responsible for suicide attacks. You could say the same thing about middle eastern war movies propagated by media corporations and military contracts in order to create a stereotypical image of cultures across the seas. In an attempt to sign up more military and invade formerly sovereign middle eastern nations.

jimmywanger 10y ago

One man's "extremist" video is another man's political views. Where does it stop? Does a video supporting Trump become an extremist video if enough people complain about it? What about a video that shows you how to take apart a pistol for cleaning?

tamana 10y ago
These walled gardens have have TOSes. Extremist or political, content that violates TOS gets taken down .
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  From the Facebook TOS, and YouTube's is much the same, with different, more casual verbiage: You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user. You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence. That is such a broad swathe that any unpopular opinion can get disqualified. Is me posting a video of how to sharpen a kitchen knife threatening? Or someone advocating that the Civil War should have never happened because of the right of states to withdraw from the Union? We need the freedom of speech to protect unpopular opinions, not popular ones.
  - caseysoftware 10y ago
    Or as US Supreme Court Justice Stewart said: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it That was in reference to identifying "hardcore pornography" but seems appropriate in talking about hate speech, threats, bullying, and a variety of other issues.
  - dave2000 10y ago
    They need broad rules because whatever rule you come up with, some clown is going to try and get around it. Or just post something obviously against the spirit of the rules then argue about it. Users don't have a stake in Facebook, YouTube etc, but the companies running them do. They'd probably all prefer to just have "don't be a dick" but we live in a world full of pedants and lawyers and professional irritants so by having something a little more concrete it preempts a lot of rather tedious complaints. If you're a rebel prophet with something exciting to say then no-ones stopping you paying a small amount of money for a domain name and hosting and away you go. If you can't do that then I'd agree there's censorship and there's a problem. Other than that, you should have absolutely no expectation that other people are going to do the heavy lifting for you, whether that's paying for your hosting/bandwidth, or taking the heat when users, advertisers etc complain about your content.

exstudent2 10y ago

I wonder what it is they hope to accomplish by blocking this type of content. One could argue that what actually happens is a Streisand effect that promotes the views these companies are attempting to squash. My belief is that movements like Trump are a direct effect of overreaching censorship by the left which has essentially created a new right wing movement due to people backlashing against left wing media shaping. In short, if the ideas are truly terrible they should be left viewable to everyone since they'll only turn people off. It's when you hide things that people become curious as to why the content is powerful enough to require censorship.

dave2000 10y ago
If by "extremist content" you mean religious fanatics beheading people, or calling people to arms, or giving tips on producing bombs or whatever, then you are entitled to treat this as "unpopular ideas" which "need defending in a free society" or whatever, but don't be surprised if sane, rational people take a somewhat different view and decide they don't want to spread hatred, nor leave themselves open to lawsuits for the honour of hosting this content for free. All companies like to talk about fostering freedom or whatever, but as organisations which exist to make profit it's partly because censorship costs them money, and also the more content they have, the more of a surface they have to make money from. They don't really give a shit about you or your freedom, and there's precious little internal conflict about whether to host this months crop of terrorist atrocities.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  Parent comment didn't say they were ideas that "need defending in a free society", or anything about freedom. He just said that censoring them might have negative consequences. I don't know if it's correct in this case. But I know that in general, people see censorship as validation of the ideas being censored, and also as a rallying flag for something to be angry about.
- exstudent2 10y ago
  I'm not talking about videos of beheadings (although there's a case for keeping things like that around too to help educate people). I'm talking about suppression of everyday right wing viewpoints. Things like this: http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006 http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-supp... For context, I'm not right-wing myself but absolutely object to censoring content based on political viewpoints such as this.

vonklaus 10y ago

I think an important point which is related is that these companies control information. DMCA requests and the companies issuing them have become much more sophisticated. The joke is that Bing is much better for porn. However, I personally have noticed many files, images and other media have completely disappeared from google results. The amount of information on the internet is of course staggering, but no one seems concerned that it is accessed through a very tightly controlled pipeline. edit: not sure how anyone could disagree that the english speaking internet is almost exclusively controlled by google and (to a lesser extent Microsoft). Chrome and Edge/Explorer have ~67% of browser market share and google has ~75% SE market share while bing has ~7%. 2 companies collectively control the environment and on ramp to the english speaking internet. Facebook (and now microsoft with the purchase of linkedin) as well as google control the bulk of people's online identitites.

LargeCompanies 10y ago

Not sure if this a good thing they would just move further underground vs. allowing it to continue and flag these accounts/send notice to law enforcement and the FBI. They supposedly track us anyway hopefully they are tracking these degenerates more then sally sue saying how much she loves joe weiner.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

j3FF3ry 10y ago

I have never came across any extremist video on facebook, youtube or even twitter. Maybe if I was actually searching for it I could find it? What sort of terms would one use?

alexqgb 10y ago

As others have noted, the issue is that so many political terms are relative (e.g., the way 'terrorist' is applied to Middle-Easterners far more swiftly and casually than Americans who are equally violent for very similar reasons.) An organization doing what Google and Facebook are doing must therefore (a) clearly articulate the position on which their judgments are based (b) openly assert that their position is fundamentally superior and preferable to the moral order that accepts the practices that are being suppressed (c) provide a open and defensible argument for selecting one set of values while forcefully rejecting another and (d) be willing to modify this position in the event that fatal contradictions appear, or excessively negative consequences result. In short, these platforms must not just govern, but do so from a well-considered and articulated philosophy of liberal governance. Fortunately, they need not start from scratch. There is an abundance of data to support the idea that nations that have broadly inclusive economies with widely and equitably representative policy making bodies are the most prosperous, stable, and desirable places to live. (For details, see "Why Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466900793&sr=8-1&keywords=why+nations+fail https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/d...) By adopting for themselves the governing principles that underpin the most successful societies, Internet platforms can become greater forces for good. At the same time this empirically grounded approach will better shield them from maliciously self-serving people who want to see political and economic power concentrated in the kinds of small and closed sets of hands (specifically, theirs). As any number of examples from Egypt to Russia to Venezuela to Zimbabwe have shown, those who dominate closed economies and the political systems that reinforce each other invariably make life a living hell for everyone. To the extent that these systems are maintained by way of retrograde social norms, any platform committed to a more open, just society should have no qualms about disarming those who view civil society as anathema.

Animats 10y ago

What's "extremist"? Dabiq?[1] Stormfront? Donald Trump? The National Rifle Association? Fox News? It's worth reading Dabiq to hear what ISIS has to say. Know your enemy. They're quite clear about wanting to kill everyone who doesn't support their strict interpretation of Islam. (ISIS cannot have allies; they consider that religiously prohibited.) The latest issue also includes a long article about why the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has abandoned strict Islam and is now an enemy. None of this is likely to recruit anybody who isn't already a fanatic of some kind. Unfortunately, there are those in search of something to be fanatical about. Even if they can turn only 0.004% of the population into fighters for their cause (that's roughly their recruiting success rate in the Western world), that's a success for them. Dabiq mentions their 10 videos for this month, and searches for them turn up articles about them, but not playable versions of the videos. Even the one linked to "archive.org" isn't coming up. Unclear if this is censorship. [1] https://www.clarionproject.org/docs/Dabiq-Issue-14.pdf https://www.clarionproject.org/docs/Dabiq-Issue-14.pdf

downandout 10y ago
What's "extremist"? Dabiq?[1] Stormfront? Donald Trump? The National Rifle Association? Fox News I think its pretty simple. If a given group has ever claimed responsibility for, expressed the intention to commit, or publicly praised, a terrorist act against civilians, that's an extremist group. Whatever can be done to block their communications with the rest of the world should be done. It's no mystery as to who they are - they're very public about it. The same kind of analysis should be done for individuals that desire to enter the US or non-residents already visiting the US. "Oh, you were on Facebook saying how the guy in Orlando was a hero? Sorry, time to go home."
- dpc59 10y ago
  People protesting against austerity and gentrification have broken windows of banks and stores. Is this terrorism since in the end civilians own those? If it is where do you draw the line on censorship of the people who want the same things but were never involved in those crimes against property?

tdkl 10y ago

"Boohoo, I want to feel safe in my safespace and don't feel icky feelings" - modern Internet user

dforrestwilson 10y ago

Equivalent to pretending that Hitler never existed.