14 ms·

YouTube Will Redirect Searches For Extremist Videos To Anti-Terrorist Playlists

71 points by lainon 9y ago

kovalevlad 9y ago
That's all very well but perhaps they should also stop deleting Russian opposition videos/channels and justify that by claiming they contain extremist content when there is none. #FixRussianYoutube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZwAVsAgsLQ&t=190s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZwAVsAgsLQ&t=190s
- perlpimp 9y ago
  Going on a tangent / Google(youtube) is a publicly traded corporation, being banned in a country to support democracy(and missing out on advertising income) is not in their list of fiduciary duties to their investors. As such anti terrorist videos are monetizable while terrorist and antigovernment rhetoric full of bad vibes and forbidden speech is not.
- IIAOPSW 9y ago
  I got to agree with the other guy on this. Youtube is bound by the laws of whatever country they operate in. If they refuse to cooperate with the Russian gov they will be banned and some other service which does comply will take their place. If you want to #FixRussianYoutube you got to first #FixRussianGovernment.
  - GhotiFish 9y ago
    I think your chances are doing that are slim. Maybe a better strategy is to not base our societal discourse on central points of control. Maybe #FixInternet.
  - awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
    Sure. Companies have to abide by the rules of the nations they operate in. The problem is that we used to have the higher moral ground and could mock their censorship and try to change their censorship of free expression. Now, we really can't.
Synaesthesia 9y ago
I wonder if white supremacist videos are gonna count as terrorist https://theintercept.com/2017/07/06/facebooks-tough-on-terror-talk-overlooks-white-extremists/ https://theintercept.com/2017/07/06/facebooks-tough-on-terro...
- throw34away5 9y ago
  I also wonder if any religious video of any faith that calls for beating one's wife,inequality between men and women, death for non believers and homosexuals, antisemitism or female genital mutilation will also be counted as extremist video.
  - theonewhogroks 9y ago
    I hope all videos advocating violence are included.
  - praulv 9y ago
    Yes, any religious video as such should absolutely be counted. Feel free to start flagging them with your brave throwaway account: https://www.youtube.com/results https://www.youtube.com/results? search_query=CHRISTIAN+PASTOR+death+homosexuality
  - StavrosK 9y ago
    Even if the video calls for none of those, you mean? Of course, like you, I would quite like to see all Christian videos banned, but I'm afraid it might set a precedent.
    - ricksharp 9y ago
      Really, because we must censor ideas like "love your enemies" and "treat others the way you want to be treated"? (Matthew 5:44) (https://youtu.be/L0HhHLHLHaA https://youtu.be/L0HhHLHLHaA) I agree that abusers will use any name for their own means, but generalization of a group because of false persons who claim that group is never helpful. Of course there are the false teachers who use Christianity for their own power (i.e. televangelist types), but there are also people who actually believe the great teachings like forgiveness and love one another. They are the ones who will pick you up when someone else has beaten you into the mud.
BartSaM 9y ago
And who will decide what is "Extremist Videos"? This is a dangerous game YT plays now. Who will decide who is a freedom fighter and who is an extremist? Who is good and who is bad?
- paganel 9y ago
  >Who will decide who is a freedom fighter and who is an extremist? For the moment the "reagan meets the taliban" search still points to the right, non-brain-washing videos (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=reagan++meets+the+taliban https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=reagan++meets+t...), so on this front we are safe. On a more serious note, who ever thought this might be a good idea? Censorship never works in this sort of cases, it never has. All it does is it adds legitimacy to fringe beliefs. I for example still think that if it hadn't been for the martyrdoms and censorship they had to suffer early on the Christians and their sect would have had never gained such a following.
- megous 9y ago
  It doesn't need to be decided in any meaningful or principled way. The metric can simply be: whatever brings in more advertising money and less trouble from people in power. YouToube is no unbiased public service with higher moral or principled goals. It has to operate in a complicated world with many competing pressures from powerful entities.
oelmekki 9y ago
Which also means journalists won't be able to access those videos as sources. Although, I'm not ready to call that a bad decision, because propaganda is indeed the biggest problem with ISIS. This is just treating the symptom, obviously (why do young people ever consider joining a terrorist group? Certainly not through youtube videos as the only factor), but also treating the symptom is ok if we try to solve the deeper problem at the same time (unemployment? defiance resulting from corruption?).
- megous 9y ago
  Also normal people who just don't want to be fed the conclusions and sanitized images from the news outlets, and want to watch the actual thing in full length, compare information from multiple opposing sources, geolocate events, timestamp them, or whatever is up to their current fancy, to be able to form their worldview themselves also have a harder time. But that's nothing new, you already have to be quick, as links have been disappearing shortly after being posted for a long time.
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
  > Which also means journalists won't be able to access those videos as sources Journalists and news media are the biggest advocates for censorship on social media as it competes with their narrative. > Although, I'm not ready to call that a bad decision, because propaganda is indeed the biggest problem with ISIS. Most people equate ISIS with pure evil because of their propaganda. The biggest problem with ISIS is the killing/murders. Not their propaganda. Just because a few unhinged people are attracted to it doesn't mean that their propaganda is working. > but also treating the symptom is ok if we try to solve the deeper problem at the same time (unemployment? defiance resulting from corruption?). Don't forget the invasions of iraq/libya/syria/etc by our governments to destabilize the region. Which was supported by the traditional media.
freeflight 9y ago
This recent trend is really worrisome. YouTube also shut down quite a lot of channels in connection with the Syrian civil war. Reddit too closed down a couple of subreddits, and admins banned users who shared ISIS related content on the /r/syriancivilwar/ subreddit. What an utterly useless and counterproductive exercise in de facto censorship. The only thing this does is drive people deeper into the underground, even closer to actual extremists. Extremist ideas need to be fought with rational discourse, drag them out into the open and let the sunshine disinfect them. Trying to hide them out of sight, like they don't exist, only makes them fester all the more in secret and partly legitimizes these extremists in their view of being unjustly persecuted.
- DelightOne 9y ago
  You didnt cite examples where this is working. Sending them from pro to anti propaganda, assuming propaganda works, does work.
  - mcintyre1994 9y ago
    You didn't cite examples either, and I'm skeptical of the premise. If reddit started redirecting /r/the_donald links to anti-Trump propaganda, or Youtube started redirecting his own videos to anti-Trump propaganda, no matter how good that propaganda is, I don't believe you that you could change their mind. And those people aren't even radicalised.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      I don't have any sources either, but I'm sure that there will be different reactions to such redirects, depending on the individual. The hardened core will probably feel justified in their beliefs by the attempt to combat them and radicalize even quicker. But more casual group members might actually change their mind if they are confronted with outside opinions, especially if they hadn't considered them before. So whether this kind of propaganda is effective or not essentially depends on the makeup of the targeted group. I guess you could try measuring the effect by tracking engagement of the redirected. If they are truly radicalized, they are likely to leave; but if they are more open-minded, they might stay a little longer.
IIAOPSW 9y ago
I hate the fact that if I voice anything skeptical of this policy someone will call me a terrorist sympathizer. I'm of the conviction that the idea of blowing yourself up is bad enough that we don't really need to censor it. Furthermore I've noticed that the public largely stops thinking the moment "terrorists" or "ISIS" is mentioned. We now live in a state where we can't move ~5000 USD without informing the government because "anti-terrorism money laundering laws". We can't mail certain food products into the US because "bio terrorism act of 2003". Our FBI wants to back door encryption because "ISIS". Notice a pattern yet? Will it stop with ISIS? Once the precedent is set how long will it be before other search results are manipulated for political reason? And its not like there's any side of the political spectrum I can vote for. Both Hillary and Trump wanted to censor extremism on Twitter. Both wanted to expand the no-fly list into a no-buy-guns list (constitutional implications be damned). Left, right, center and abroad the civil libertarian is under siege.
- dangero 9y ago
  The other day I was considering commenting in a negative way about something the NSA tweeted, but a voice in my head said, "Do you really want to be put on a special surveilance list?" That's when I realized our freedoms are under threat by those that are tasked with defending them. Think what you will about the NSA, but they certainly have not gone out of their way to make clear to me they care about my freedoms. Lying to congress, private courts granting warrants via secret constitution interpretations -- something is very wrong here. I fear the NSA as an upstanding citizen and they seem to be OK with that. Also more related to your comment the "don't watch ISIS videos it gives them power." I think it's misguided. Just out of curiousity I tracked down a couple of them online and it was very thought provoking. It did not make me fear ISIS more, but it did help me understand the situation more. Just not convinced intelligent people should avoid uncensored information collection, but there is so much being censored in the US right now and the media encourages you to not educate yourself on both sides.
  - nerdponx 9y ago
    +1 for watching ISIS videos. I needed to understand the situation, I needed to internalize it better. I watched an execution. I watched combat footage. And I am glad I did. I now understand the severity and urgency of the problem. I didn't use a VPN or anything. NSA, come get me.
logicallee 9y ago
what's interesting is that Google has been doing this for some time! For the longest time I was curious what would happen if you did a specific but obviously wrong search such as "how do I poison someone and get away with it" or "how do I join ISIS without being caught" or something. Well as you can imagine for obvious reasons I did not do those searches! (To spell it out, I did not want them in my search history, and also they show pretty clear criminal intent, and also we have clandestine agencies who presumably watch for such things perhaps with Google's cooperation, etc.) Well some time ago I had the brilliant idea that I could test an "obviously wrong" search to see what kinds of results it would give. So I'm male, and I decided to search "How do I trick a man into thinking he's the father" or something (as though I'm pregnant) which is pretty clearly wrong but which I'm obviously immune to the idea of intent for. (To spell it out, because males obviously don't get pregnant.) I expected search results like forum discussions, a Yahoo Answer question phrased with that exact word, etc. You know, same as if you Google any other specific question like that. Well that's not what I got at all. Despite my very specific question phrased something like the above, ALL of the top ten links were to pages about "paternity fraud" - which I didn't even know was a thing. (I just thought it was just a shitty thing to do, and anyway could always be played off as a genuine mistake.) So I instantly learned that what I was Googling was fraud, and closed the page without clicking any of the links to learn more. But my reaction was: well played, Google!! If I had actually started out with that thought, it's likely I would have abandoned it after that search. To be clear, Google did NOT answer my question directly (even though no doubt there are tons of pages that would have answered it exactly as asked), instead teaching me why it's wrong. I was very impressed. I can only imagine the same would be done for some of the worse types of queries someone can do. - Note: just to make this gender-neutral: if I were a woman then to do my experiment I could have Googled something like "how long can I trick her into having sex with me if I got a vasectomy and she is trying to get pregnant" or something, which obviously cannot be a genuine question by a woman.
- johnchristopher 9y ago
  Have you tried without a profile and with another profile ? I regularly search Google with questions I think another persona would ask (parents or project manager recently).
thinkloop 9y ago
It's hard to tell what "redirect to playlists" means - will the relevant videos be completely censored, or are they adding a playlist of opposing views to the same results? The latter seems like a nice compromise.
- mgiannopoulos 9y ago
  >> Once we have this content in place, we create targeted advertising campaigns that serve this content directly to people who are searching for information about ISIS and the caliphate, as well as people who are trying to view extremist content online. We serve these ads the same way that businesses have been doing for years—we serve advertising against certain keywords that people tend to use when they’re looking for jihadist content online << https://redirectmethod.org/qa/ https://redirectmethod.org/qa/
gaius 9y ago
There is already suspicion that Google manipulated results for political ends: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/31/google_axes_eu_referendum_website/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/31/google_axes_eu_refe... You might think "good, it was a stupid idea anyway" but what if next time it's something that you care about? It's a dangerous precedent to allow to be set.
avaer 9y ago
I'd even be fine with this if it were applied equally to US politicians calling for executions and sermons threatening people with damnation. This isn't about actual extremism though; it's simply about getting off of YouTube the things that cannot be sold for advertising dollars.
alsadi 9y ago
This is very scary. They control what we see and only show us what they want us to see. Some party use terrorism execuse to have more control. Play on people fears to take their freedom and choice. What they believe to be politically right is now what is right. This is drak ages church stoning witches and if you say something against it then you support black magic and get stoned
sauronlord 9y ago
This is disgusting. If you survey all the regular citizens of the entire world and ask them one question. "Which group or country is responsible for most terrorist acts?" The answer is 95% of people vote the USA to be the #1 terrorist organization. This is not just a matter of opinion, but reflected in the blood soaked histories of the USA's secret assassinations, coups, and bombings. You know what's extremist vs. not extremist? Whatever the mainstream media wants you to think. That's what.
awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
The precedence this sets is so scary and shortsighted. So a gay man ( or even a straight person ) in saudi arabia wanting to find out more about homosexuality will be directed to anti-gay playlist which tells them how evil gays are? In china, instead of blocking tiannamen square searches, they'll simply redirct it to showing what a great a idea it was? What about religious countries? Will youtube simply redirect searches for atheism to "anti-atheism" site? This is the worst form of censorship as it is sneaky and exploitive. As a liberal ( possibly former liberal ), it is shocking to me that the liberals are the ones leading the call for censorship online, in academia and business. It reminds me of Animal Farm/1984. Now that liberals have used the protections free speech to gain a lot of power/mindshare, we are trying to use it to censor everything we find offensive. Not only is this a horrific form of censorship, it removes any credibility we ever had of criticizing others for their censorship.
- hnbroseph 9y ago
  generally, 'liberal' politicians in the us are the same corporate sell-outs that 'conservative' politicians are. they just work in a smidge of meaningless feel-good language in the rhetoric while doing largely nothing of consequence to actually help put food on the table. they glory in war and economic imperialism and servicing the oligarchy just as much as any.
newscracker 9y ago
How will YouTube decide if my search (as an example) is to learn more about extremism? Maybe I'm a budding political and social thinker who's interested in understanding the deeper driving forces and would like to come up with approaches on how to deal with these threats in ways that are not just "let's just bomb the hell out of all these people and that will solve the problem once and for all." What about journalists who want to report on these propaganda videos in a concise yet coherent manner for the rest of the public to get a better grip of things? What about policy makers who'd like to understand and then take action? What about think tanks and policy research? What about economic and political researchers? What about "good" people who create similar videos for educational purposes (maybe a classroom assignment to analyze and come up with essays)? I seem to be repeating stuff, but there are a lot of people who can truly help humankind (and non-humans) by accessing these videos. We have to get better at understanding things better before we can claim to have solutions. The dynamics of a year ago may not be the same as what exists now or what may happen a year from now. Censorship is a bad answer if we want to solve issues. Would even the intelligence agencies be happy with such a move since it makes the wanted people disappear off their radars and use other modes of communication? I believe this is a self-defeating attitude and approach for anyone who desires to look beyond knee jerk reactions and instant conclusions. The way to deal with damaging propaganda is to create more awareness and education material and put it in front of people, IMO.
williamle8300 9y ago
So how will people know just how vile ISIS is? Should be defer our judgement to main stream news media to tell us? It's absurd that the Redirect company's mission statement is to "counter censorship" and their main job is to censor information.
mgiannopoulos 9y ago
It should be noted that this not an actual redirect. As I understand it, no content is hidden. The "redirect" name is terribly chosen. All they do is add ads for other videos From the FAQ >> Once we have this content in place, we create targeted advertising campaigns that serve this content directly to people who are searching for information about ISIS and the caliphate, as well as people who are trying to view extremist content online. We serve these ads the same way that businesses have been doing for years—we serve advertising against certain keywords that people tend to use when they’re looking for jihadist content online << https://redirectmethod.org/qa/ https://redirectmethod.org/qa/
mnm1 9y ago
This is simply censorship. YouTube has a right to censor its content so it can make more money. The service will be less useful for research and reporting of news stories, I suppose but the censorship is not any different than what TV and other media have been doing for decades. Frankly, I'm surprised it took them this long. They are a commercial entity after all and their only reason for being is to make money. Of course, now they are using the technology to censor terrorists. Tomorrow they'll censor more reasonable content, no doubt. That's how these things work.

71 points by lainon 9y ago

That's all very well but perhaps they should also stop deleting Russian opposition videos/channels and justify that by claiming they contain extremist content when there is none. #FixRussianYoutube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZwAVsAgsLQ&t=190s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZwAVsAgsLQ&t=190s

perlpimp 9y ago
Going on a tangent / Google(youtube) is a publicly traded corporation, being banned in a country to support democracy(and missing out on advertising income) is not in their list of fiduciary duties to their investors. As such anti terrorist videos are monetizable while terrorist and antigovernment rhetoric full of bad vibes and forbidden speech is not.
IIAOPSW 9y ago
I got to agree with the other guy on this. Youtube is bound by the laws of whatever country they operate in. If they refuse to cooperate with the Russian gov they will be banned and some other service which does comply will take their place. If you want to #FixRussianYoutube you got to first #FixRussianGovernment.
- GhotiFish 9y ago
  I think your chances are doing that are slim. Maybe a better strategy is to not base our societal discourse on central points of control. Maybe #FixInternet.
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
  Sure. Companies have to abide by the rules of the nations they operate in. The problem is that we used to have the higher moral ground and could mock their censorship and try to change their censorship of free expression. Now, we really can't.

Synaesthesia 9y ago

I wonder if white supremacist videos are gonna count as terrorist https://theintercept.com/2017/07/06/facebooks-tough-on-terror-talk-overlooks-white-extremists/ https://theintercept.com/2017/07/06/facebooks-tough-on-terro...

throw34away5 9y ago
I also wonder if any religious video of any faith that calls for beating one's wife,inequality between men and women, death for non believers and homosexuals, antisemitism or female genital mutilation will also be counted as extremist video.
- theonewhogroks 9y ago
  I hope all videos advocating violence are included.
- praulv 9y ago
  Yes, any religious video as such should absolutely be counted. Feel free to start flagging them with your brave throwaway account: https://www.youtube.com/results https://www.youtube.com/results? search_query=CHRISTIAN+PASTOR+death+homosexuality
- StavrosK 9y ago
  Even if the video calls for none of those, you mean? Of course, like you, I would quite like to see all Christian videos banned, but I'm afraid it might set a precedent.
  - ricksharp 9y ago
    Really, because we must censor ideas like "love your enemies" and "treat others the way you want to be treated"? (Matthew 5:44) (https://youtu.be/L0HhHLHLHaA https://youtu.be/L0HhHLHLHaA) I agree that abusers will use any name for their own means, but generalization of a group because of false persons who claim that group is never helpful. Of course there are the false teachers who use Christianity for their own power (i.e. televangelist types), but there are also people who actually believe the great teachings like forgiveness and love one another. They are the ones who will pick you up when someone else has beaten you into the mud.

BartSaM 9y ago

And who will decide what is "Extremist Videos"? This is a dangerous game YT plays now. Who will decide who is a freedom fighter and who is an extremist? Who is good and who is bad?

paganel 9y ago
>Who will decide who is a freedom fighter and who is an extremist? For the moment the "reagan meets the taliban" search still points to the right, non-brain-washing videos (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=reagan++meets+the+taliban https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=reagan++meets+t...), so on this front we are safe. On a more serious note, who ever thought this might be a good idea? Censorship never works in this sort of cases, it never has. All it does is it adds legitimacy to fringe beliefs. I for example still think that if it hadn't been for the martyrdoms and censorship they had to suffer early on the Christians and their sect would have had never gained such a following.
megous 9y ago
It doesn't need to be decided in any meaningful or principled way. The metric can simply be: whatever brings in more advertising money and less trouble from people in power. YouToube is no unbiased public service with higher moral or principled goals. It has to operate in a complicated world with many competing pressures from powerful entities.

oelmekki 9y ago

Which also means journalists won't be able to access those videos as sources. Although, I'm not ready to call that a bad decision, because propaganda is indeed the biggest problem with ISIS. This is just treating the symptom, obviously (why do young people ever consider joining a terrorist group? Certainly not through youtube videos as the only factor), but also treating the symptom is ok if we try to solve the deeper problem at the same time (unemployment? defiance resulting from corruption?).

megous 9y ago
Also normal people who just don't want to be fed the conclusions and sanitized images from the news outlets, and want to watch the actual thing in full length, compare information from multiple opposing sources, geolocate events, timestamp them, or whatever is up to their current fancy, to be able to form their worldview themselves also have a harder time. But that's nothing new, you already have to be quick, as links have been disappearing shortly after being posted for a long time.
awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
> Which also means journalists won't be able to access those videos as sources Journalists and news media are the biggest advocates for censorship on social media as it competes with their narrative. > Although, I'm not ready to call that a bad decision, because propaganda is indeed the biggest problem with ISIS. Most people equate ISIS with pure evil because of their propaganda. The biggest problem with ISIS is the killing/murders. Not their propaganda. Just because a few unhinged people are attracted to it doesn't mean that their propaganda is working. > but also treating the symptom is ok if we try to solve the deeper problem at the same time (unemployment? defiance resulting from corruption?). Don't forget the invasions of iraq/libya/syria/etc by our governments to destabilize the region. Which was supported by the traditional media.

freeflight 9y ago

This recent trend is really worrisome. YouTube also shut down quite a lot of channels in connection with the Syrian civil war. Reddit too closed down a couple of subreddits, and admins banned users who shared ISIS related content on the /r/syriancivilwar/ subreddit. What an utterly useless and counterproductive exercise in de facto censorship. The only thing this does is drive people deeper into the underground, even closer to actual extremists. Extremist ideas need to be fought with rational discourse, drag them out into the open and let the sunshine disinfect them. Trying to hide them out of sight, like they don't exist, only makes them fester all the more in secret and partly legitimizes these extremists in their view of being unjustly persecuted.

DelightOne 9y ago
You didnt cite examples where this is working. Sending them from pro to anti propaganda, assuming propaganda works, does work.
- mcintyre1994 9y ago
  You didn't cite examples either, and I'm skeptical of the premise. If reddit started redirecting /r/the_donald links to anti-Trump propaganda, or Youtube started redirecting his own videos to anti-Trump propaganda, no matter how good that propaganda is, I don't believe you that you could change their mind. And those people aren't even radicalised.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    I don't have any sources either, but I'm sure that there will be different reactions to such redirects, depending on the individual. The hardened core will probably feel justified in their beliefs by the attempt to combat them and radicalize even quicker. But more casual group members might actually change their mind if they are confronted with outside opinions, especially if they hadn't considered them before. So whether this kind of propaganda is effective or not essentially depends on the makeup of the targeted group. I guess you could try measuring the effect by tracking engagement of the redirected. If they are truly radicalized, they are likely to leave; but if they are more open-minded, they might stay a little longer.

IIAOPSW 9y ago

I hate the fact that if I voice anything skeptical of this policy someone will call me a terrorist sympathizer. I'm of the conviction that the idea of blowing yourself up is bad enough that we don't really need to censor it. Furthermore I've noticed that the public largely stops thinking the moment "terrorists" or "ISIS" is mentioned. We now live in a state where we can't move ~5000 USD without informing the government because "anti-terrorism money laundering laws". We can't mail certain food products into the US because "bio terrorism act of 2003". Our FBI wants to back door encryption because "ISIS". Notice a pattern yet? Will it stop with ISIS? Once the precedent is set how long will it be before other search results are manipulated for political reason? And its not like there's any side of the political spectrum I can vote for. Both Hillary and Trump wanted to censor extremism on Twitter. Both wanted to expand the no-fly list into a no-buy-guns list (constitutional implications be damned). Left, right, center and abroad the civil libertarian is under siege.

dangero 9y ago
The other day I was considering commenting in a negative way about something the NSA tweeted, but a voice in my head said, "Do you really want to be put on a special surveilance list?" That's when I realized our freedoms are under threat by those that are tasked with defending them. Think what you will about the NSA, but they certainly have not gone out of their way to make clear to me they care about my freedoms. Lying to congress, private courts granting warrants via secret constitution interpretations -- something is very wrong here. I fear the NSA as an upstanding citizen and they seem to be OK with that. Also more related to your comment the "don't watch ISIS videos it gives them power." I think it's misguided. Just out of curiousity I tracked down a couple of them online and it was very thought provoking. It did not make me fear ISIS more, but it did help me understand the situation more. Just not convinced intelligent people should avoid uncensored information collection, but there is so much being censored in the US right now and the media encourages you to not educate yourself on both sides.
- nerdponx 9y ago
  +1 for watching ISIS videos. I needed to understand the situation, I needed to internalize it better. I watched an execution. I watched combat footage. And I am glad I did. I now understand the severity and urgency of the problem. I didn't use a VPN or anything. NSA, come get me.

logicallee 9y ago

what's interesting is that Google has been doing this for some time! For the longest time I was curious what would happen if you did a specific but obviously wrong search such as "how do I poison someone and get away with it" or "how do I join ISIS without being caught" or something. Well as you can imagine for obvious reasons I did not do those searches! (To spell it out, I did not want them in my search history, and also they show pretty clear criminal intent, and also we have clandestine agencies who presumably watch for such things perhaps with Google's cooperation, etc.) Well some time ago I had the brilliant idea that I could test an "obviously wrong" search to see what kinds of results it would give. So I'm male, and I decided to search "How do I trick a man into thinking he's the father" or something (as though I'm pregnant) which is pretty clearly wrong but which I'm obviously immune to the idea of intent for. (To spell it out, because males obviously don't get pregnant.) I expected search results like forum discussions, a Yahoo Answer question phrased with that exact word, etc. You know, same as if you Google any other specific question like that. Well that's not what I got at all. Despite my very specific question phrased something like the above, ALL of the top ten links were to pages about "paternity fraud" - which I didn't even know was a thing. (I just thought it was just a shitty thing to do, and anyway could always be played off as a genuine mistake.) So I instantly learned that what I was Googling was fraud, and closed the page without clicking any of the links to learn more. But my reaction was: well played, Google!! If I had actually started out with that thought, it's likely I would have abandoned it after that search. To be clear, Google did NOT answer my question directly (even though no doubt there are tons of pages that would have answered it exactly as asked), instead teaching me why it's wrong. I was very impressed. I can only imagine the same would be done for some of the worse types of queries someone can do. - Note: just to make this gender-neutral: if I were a woman then to do my experiment I could have Googled something like "how long can I trick her into having sex with me if I got a vasectomy and she is trying to get pregnant" or something, which obviously cannot be a genuine question by a woman.

johnchristopher 9y ago
Have you tried without a profile and with another profile ? I regularly search Google with questions I think another persona would ask (parents or project manager recently).

thinkloop 9y ago

It's hard to tell what "redirect to playlists" means - will the relevant videos be completely censored, or are they adding a playlist of opposing views to the same results? The latter seems like a nice compromise.

mgiannopoulos 9y ago
>> Once we have this content in place, we create targeted advertising campaigns that serve this content directly to people who are searching for information about ISIS and the caliphate, as well as people who are trying to view extremist content online. We serve these ads the same way that businesses have been doing for years—we serve advertising against certain keywords that people tend to use when they’re looking for jihadist content online << https://redirectmethod.org/qa/ https://redirectmethod.org/qa/

gaius 9y ago

There is already suspicion that Google manipulated results for political ends: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/31/google_axes_eu_referendum_website/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/31/google_axes_eu_refe... You might think "good, it was a stupid idea anyway" but what if next time it's something that you care about? It's a dangerous precedent to allow to be set.

avaer 9y ago

I'd even be fine with this if it were applied equally to US politicians calling for executions and sermons threatening people with damnation. This isn't about actual extremism though; it's simply about getting off of YouTube the things that cannot be sold for advertising dollars.

alsadi 9y ago

This is very scary. They control what we see and only show us what they want us to see. Some party use terrorism execuse to have more control. Play on people fears to take their freedom and choice. What they believe to be politically right is now what is right. This is drak ages church stoning witches and if you say something against it then you support black magic and get stoned

sauronlord 9y ago

This is disgusting. If you survey all the regular citizens of the entire world and ask them one question. "Which group or country is responsible for most terrorist acts?" The answer is 95% of people vote the USA to be the #1 terrorist organization. This is not just a matter of opinion, but reflected in the blood soaked histories of the USA's secret assassinations, coups, and bombings. You know what's extremist vs. not extremist? Whatever the mainstream media wants you to think. That's what.

awkwarddaturtle 9y ago

The precedence this sets is so scary and shortsighted. So a gay man ( or even a straight person ) in saudi arabia wanting to find out more about homosexuality will be directed to anti-gay playlist which tells them how evil gays are? In china, instead of blocking tiannamen square searches, they'll simply redirct it to showing what a great a idea it was? What about religious countries? Will youtube simply redirect searches for atheism to "anti-atheism" site? This is the worst form of censorship as it is sneaky and exploitive. As a liberal ( possibly former liberal ), it is shocking to me that the liberals are the ones leading the call for censorship online, in academia and business. It reminds me of Animal Farm/1984. Now that liberals have used the protections free speech to gain a lot of power/mindshare, we are trying to use it to censor everything we find offensive. Not only is this a horrific form of censorship, it removes any credibility we ever had of criticizing others for their censorship.

hnbroseph 9y ago
generally, 'liberal' politicians in the us are the same corporate sell-outs that 'conservative' politicians are. they just work in a smidge of meaningless feel-good language in the rhetoric while doing largely nothing of consequence to actually help put food on the table. they glory in war and economic imperialism and servicing the oligarchy just as much as any.

newscracker 9y ago

How will YouTube decide if my search (as an example) is to learn more about extremism? Maybe I'm a budding political and social thinker who's interested in understanding the deeper driving forces and would like to come up with approaches on how to deal with these threats in ways that are not just "let's just bomb the hell out of all these people and that will solve the problem once and for all." What about journalists who want to report on these propaganda videos in a concise yet coherent manner for the rest of the public to get a better grip of things? What about policy makers who'd like to understand and then take action? What about think tanks and policy research? What about economic and political researchers? What about "good" people who create similar videos for educational purposes (maybe a classroom assignment to analyze and come up with essays)? I seem to be repeating stuff, but there are a lot of people who can truly help humankind (and non-humans) by accessing these videos. We have to get better at understanding things better before we can claim to have solutions. The dynamics of a year ago may not be the same as what exists now or what may happen a year from now. Censorship is a bad answer if we want to solve issues. Would even the intelligence agencies be happy with such a move since it makes the wanted people disappear off their radars and use other modes of communication? I believe this is a self-defeating attitude and approach for anyone who desires to look beyond knee jerk reactions and instant conclusions. The way to deal with damaging propaganda is to create more awareness and education material and put it in front of people, IMO.

williamle8300 9y ago

So how will people know just how vile ISIS is? Should be defer our judgement to main stream news media to tell us? It's absurd that the Redirect company's mission statement is to "counter censorship" and their main job is to censor information.

mgiannopoulos 9y ago

It should be noted that this not an actual redirect. As I understand it, no content is hidden. The "redirect" name is terribly chosen. All they do is add ads for other videos From the FAQ >> Once we have this content in place, we create targeted advertising campaigns that serve this content directly to people who are searching for information about ISIS and the caliphate, as well as people who are trying to view extremist content online. We serve these ads the same way that businesses have been doing for years—we serve advertising against certain keywords that people tend to use when they’re looking for jihadist content online << https://redirectmethod.org/qa/ https://redirectmethod.org/qa/

mnm1 9y ago

This is simply censorship. YouTube has a right to censor its content so it can make more money. The service will be less useful for research and reporting of news stories, I suppose but the censorship is not any different than what TV and other media have been doing for decades. Frankly, I'm surprised it took them this long. They are a commercial entity after all and their only reason for being is to make money. Of course, now they are using the technology to censor terrorists. Tomorrow they'll censor more reasonable content, no doubt. That's how these things work.