44 ms·
An update on our commitment to fight terror content online
- patrickg_zill 9y agoIf YouTube exercises editorial control over their content, are they then liable? They are no longer acting as a "common carrier".
- DanielBMarkham 9y agoGoogle has a commitment to appear to fight terror content online. They do not have an actual commitment to fight it. They have no independent definition of what terrorism is. They have made no statements about how any one definition of terrorism is better or worse than any other one. They've done nothing proactively to identify terrorist or prevent terrorist acts. Instead, they're trying to do something without actually being responsible for it. They've gathered together their own pack of cool kids and those folks have been tasked with telling Google what to do. In this manner the company actually stands for nothing more than "We've tried to cover all the bases of groups that are important to us that might complain" That's not taking a stand. That's just an odd combination of shrewdness, weaseling, and self-congratulation. Par for the course for big SV companies. Some huge companies will control what kinds of political posters go up in its halls -- an act with nothing more than symbolic meaning -- while cooperating with dictatorships that use their services to hunt down dissidents. Related: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/16/how-social-media-helps-dictators/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/16/how-social-media-helps-d... As tech folks, we've been congratulating ourselves way too much and taking way too little of an honest look at what actual impact we're having. That's gotta stop.
- joshfraser 9y agoThe strength of your convictions are only tested at the extremes. You can't say you believe in free speech if that only includes speech you like.
- DanBC 9y agoThe US extremist version of free speech isn't shared anywhere else in the world. Most countries are happy with their limited version of free speech. And even the US has limits on what you can publish - see for example the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Crush_Video_Prohibition_Act_of_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Crush_Video_Prohibition...
- snerbles 9y agoIt's interesting that some consider the notion of freedom as extremism, with all the attached implications. Here lies individualist-collectivist divide.
- matthewmacleod 9y agoNot really. There are very few people who consider 'freedom' in that sense to be an absolute right; the argument is merely about which restrictions are acceptable, and which are not.
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago> The US extremist version of free speech isn't shared anywhere else in the world. It's not law anywhere else in the world, but many people share it, myself included. Do not confuse law with ideals - after all, google acting as a censor is perfectly legal even in the 'free speech extremist' US.
- Grue3 9y ago>Most countries are happy with the lack of free speech. There, fixed it for you. There are a lot of human rights "most countries" have historically opposed.
- kgwgk 9y agoI'm sure the writers of the constitution didn't imagine how much power the commerce clause would give the federal government.
- matthewmacleod 9y agoThis is a weak argument. It is possible to both believe in free speech – that is, the right for anybody to publish whatever views they want – while simultaneously deciding that you do not want to publish those views yourself, nor support the publishing of them.
- golemotron 9y agoThat is certainly true but it uncovers the issue of whether we consider free speech a value or not. Google is saying that it isn't. It's going to get very problematic. When big players squeeze the Overton Window it becomes an Overton Bubble. We'll be blindsided by more electoral decisions that are puzzling due to preference falsification.
- falcolas 9y ago> When people search for sensitive keywords on YouTube, they will be redirected towards a playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages. Sigh. The chance for overlap with educational videos is going to be pretty damned high. Just like past efforts to stop porn have also stopped a large number of sex education sites. Also, how are they judging accuracy? That's one key bit of information they're missing here. What's the escalation path for videos improperly caught up in the automated sweeps? Their existing copyright flagging mechanisms shows the inadequacy of their automated systems to date. Who reviews the human flags? The Alex Mauer YouTube debacle (a contracted worker taking down let's play videos to put pressure on a developer unrelated to the videos) has shown that the power is too far in the accuser's hands.
- forapurpose 9y ago> past efforts to stop porn have also stopped a large number of sex education sites That raises an interesting example: YouTube has effectively blocked porn, and I haven't heard anyone complain.
- naturalgradient 9y ago'More experts: Of course, our systems are only as good as the the data they’re based on. Over the past weeks, we have begun working with more than 15 additional expert NGOs and institutions through our Trusted Flagger program, including the Anti-Defamation League, the No Hate Speech Movement, and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue' This makes me cringe. Every single one of these organisations consists of people with specific political views of acceptable and not acceptable content. In Europe, the 'no hate speech' idea has very quickly expanded the concept of hate speech to include any rightwing opinion around certain topics (mostly religion and immigration related). More people feel disenfranchised and excluded from the discourse, more grandstanding around fighting hate speech where the existence of countless organisations, consultants, experts and so forth can only be justified by uncovering more hate speech. Quite literally the growth of their economy requires expansion of the concept. The divide continues.
- civilian 9y agoYeah, this sucks. Another example of this is Southern Poverty Law Center's "Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists". They include Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which is disgusting of the SPLC to do. https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-...
- sudosteph 9y agoOuch, that article really hurt my respect for SPL. Nawaz especially, through his discussions with Sam Harris, really opened my eyes to the struggles of moderate and progressive Muslims when it comes to reforming Islam. Nawaz was himself radicalized as a young man, and much of his work today is around preventing other young Muslims from taking that path. It disgusts me that a man with such a important perspective is carelessly labeled anti-Muslim. Check out the audiobook discussion with Sam Harris if you haven't, "Islam and the future of Tolerance". It was a good, respectful discussion between two very different viewpoints, and Nawaz made very insightful and logical arguments for mainstream Islam being capable of undertaking certain anti-radicalization reforms and why those matter.
- dilap 9y agoAwesome, just what I've always wanted: Machine learning and unelected, unaccountable groups of experts to tell me what videos I'm allowed to comment on. So happy to see free speech is alive & kicking in the west.
- sqeaky 9y agoIts Youtube, not a public space and not something government controlled. They are free to say what is and isn't on their system. What if you made a system and someone took that from you and they demanded that ISIS be given equal rights to people with your political leanings? Don't tolerate intolerance. Thats not tolerance is spineless.
- MrZongle2 9y ago"Don't tolerate intolerance." Sure. Just define "intolerance".
- blowski 9y agoI honestly don't know what to do about this situation. I don't even know if it is a situation, or just some drama whipped up by the right wing press. I'd love to see some real stats. How many videos are we talking about here? How many views do they get?
- yalue 9y agoThat's the thing, though. Extremist videos are already against the rules, can be reported by users, and removed if the reports have merit. Whether it's exaggerated "by the right-wing press" or not (I find it concerning despite being left-leaning and not the press), I don't like the notion of any politically-aligned parties having an outsized role in deciding what's "appropriate".
- losteverything 9y agoI agree. Numbers and absolutes really help.
- turc1656 9y ago“When people search for sensitive keywords on YouTube, they will be redirected towards a playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages.” How much you wanna bet that “feature” is going to be used to alter/redirect the video results for other things like political opinions that Google doesn’t approve of? I foresee the right wing extremists like Breitbart and InfoWars getting affected by this. Not that I like either of those, but I think this is going to be a super sneaky way to curate the feeds that people see and the videos that are searchable online. Twitter did something recently that was very similar to this and people were finding that their followers weren't seeing their tweets.
- lstamour 9y agoI'd take that bet. There's a big difference between Google and YouTube, look at how they each handle copyright. YouTube pulls things, but Google links to DMCA takedowns. And extremist content should be harder to find, regardless of source. There's a big difference between extremist content and less violent political discourse, though. And YouTube as a hosting platform vs. hosting your video elsewhere. That all said, the Google OneBox is already an example of altering search results to display what Google thinks you meant based on potentially slanted sources on the Internet.
- Duwensatzaj 9y agoYou'd lose the bet - it's already happening. https://qz.com/666871/german-viewers-of-immigrant-hating-youtube-videos-must-first-watch-ads-with-real-refugee-stories/ https://qz.com/666871/german-viewers-of-immigrant-hating-you...
- b_ttercup 9y agoThis seems to describe a group which bought ad space. That's not google's doing.
- yalue 9y agoI would say that this is the only use for this particular feature, because actual calls to violence and extremist messages are already against the rules on youtube and can simply be reported by users. Like you, I also find the Alex Jones and his ilk to be disturbing and harmful, and consider it a bad sign that people like you and me need to qualify any statement against censorship by explicitly saying we aren't part of the American far right.
- azinman2 9y agoI see a lot of anti-expert pro-speech comments. That’s great and all at the theoretical government law side of things, but YouTube is a private organization that _is_ being used as a platform by organizations like ISIS to radicalize random individuals who then go out and kill innocent people. Should Google allow these videos to be on equal footing with funny cat videos?
- bmmayer1 9y agoWhat do you mean by 'equal footing.' The footing that videos like these stand on is only as strong as the support that they have from viewers. We live in a marketplace of ideas. People who support ISIS are not going to stop because Google takes the videos down, but it does start a dangerous precedent to censor any content Google doesn't like.
- aaron-lebo 9y agoRadicalization is real. It's why terrorism works. If a private service wants to restrict videos of torture killings and beheadings followed by propaganda, why not? Those shouldn't be tolerated any more than videos that show torture of animals or abuse of children. Seems like a reasonable standard and not necessarilya slippery slope?
- reitanqild 9y agoRadicalization is real. It's why terrorism works. If a private service wants to restrict videos of torture killings and beheadings followed by propaganda, why not? If this was all that was censored then we'd likely be more agreeable. Unfortunately there is cases like this which seems to be from today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14903834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14903834
- falcolas 9y agoSo, where would something like the Saddam Hussain capture/execution videos fall? Or the movies depicting the same? How about the movie Hannibal? Does it being fictional make the over-the-top torture and violence OK?
- Camillo 9y ago"Terrorism is an attack on open societies, and addressing the threat posed by violence and hate is a critical challenge for us all." [0] "Over the past weeks, we have begun working with more than 15 additional expert NGOs and institutions through our Trusted Flagger program, including the Anti-Defamation League, the No Hate Speech Movement, and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue." Note the seamless transition from terrorism, to hate, to hate speech. Therefore, to protect open societies, we have to put censors to work on our users. How far we got in a couple of blog posts! Note that the "No Hate Speech Movement" is "A youth campaign of the Council of Europe"[1] (so, not a movement at all), and the Council of Europe is an intergovernmental organization [2], so these are quite literally government censors. Speaking of openness, is the full list of NGOs participating in the Trusted Flagger program available anywhere? [0]: https://www.blog.google/topics/google-europe/four-steps-were-taking-today-fight-online-terror/ https://www.blog.google/topics/google-europe/four-steps-were... [1]: https://www.nohatespeechmovement.org/ https://www.nohatespeechmovement.org/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe
- bmmayer1 9y agoThis needs more visibility. Behind many a do-gooder trying to rid the world of 'hate' is a well-funded organization or government with an agenda trying to make cynical end run around free speech.
- BelleMe 9y agohttps://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1521567476/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1521567476/ref=ox_sc_act_t... https://pitbullandgoldfishes.wordpress.com https://pitbullandgoldfishes.wordpress.com
- simonsarris 9y agoIs this why they disabled Jordan Peterson's Youtube today? https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/892449213556166658 https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/89244921355616665... (University of Toronto Psychology Professor who makes popular YouTube videos and draws ire from a lot of SJW types) ~~~ In a way, Google is announcing to startups that making a YouTube successor/killer is still possible. As they degrade their own service, they open up more space for newcomers and competitors.
- steven777400 9y agoAlthough it could have been coincidence, it does seem like Google is making a statement with the temporary suspension of Peterson's account that these initiatives are clearly targeted at users posted politically incorrect content.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- eanzenberg 9y agoIsn't it interesting how over time what is considered the "public square" turned from being owned by gov't (free-speech rules) to private industry (no need to uphold free-speech). Sure you can go run to your local city hall and say whats on your mind but no one's going to listen. The internet allowed for widespread dissemination of views/ideas but as time goes on it will be more and more regulated by private companies.
- throwaway91111 9y agoYou know at its most literal—ie terrorism is the use of terror to gain leverage—this would imply fake news is the problem. This is just pr fluff.
- avaer 9y agoIt just hit me that if I want to get an accurate view of what people think of a contentious topic, I can't trust Google or Youtube as a gateway anymore. I simply don't know what machines or "experts" have decided to hide from me.
- waqf 9y agoYou never could: any "consensus" you see, the media consensus, the Google search consensus, the Facebook consensus, the Youtube consensus, the consensus of people on the street in your hometown, all have their own biases (social, technological and statistical even if you can escape the political) and they always had. The best you can hope for is to be aware of them.
- avaer 9y agoIt's not about consensus, it's about verifiability. When the president justifies policy because group X believes Y, I could theoretically fact-check what X actually says -- we unfortunately live in a post-truth world where that's a necessary check on democracy. I can't do that if Google has decided X is too unpleasant to be heard.
- ruleabidinguser 9y agoMeanwhile this has disappeared from the front page of HN despite having a higher score than plenty of other similarly aged posts on the front page It's no secret that the moderation here disagrees with the consensus formed in these comments. It's definitely odd.
- euyyn 9y agoI just opened it from my frontpage.
- BenjiWiebe 9y agoSo did I. Maybe his/her ISP is filtering content on HN's front page. /s
- DanBC 9y ago> moderation I'm not a mod, but I'm pretty sure moderators didn't touch this.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mythrwy 9y agoEvil censorship and PC brainwashing run amok? or is this really "An update on our commitment to avoid expensive lawsuits and pesky Internet pitchfork campaigns by appearing to do something about content some people find objectionable"? I haven't decided yet.
- spaginal 9y agoHistorically, speech isn't censored to protect people, it is done to protect institutions or governments. The slippery slope we are careening down is getting pretty troubling.
- rdtsc 9y ago> Extremists and terrorists seek to attack and erode not just our security, but also our values; the very things that make our societies open and free I wish they'd articulate what values those are. When a company the size of Google embarks on "preventing and stopping" extremists I am a little leery. Terrorism and extremism have often become synonyms with "speech I don't agree with". I have seen people called "nazis" all too easily on popular political forums like Reddit's /r/politics for daring to criticize the popular opinions. So maybe I am too paranoid here but I'd take what Google does with a grain of salt. You say something they disagree with and you might just find your email, youtube, drive, google docs, and other accounts removed...
- alecco 9y agoToday Google disabled a Jordan Peterson's account, including his YouTube channel with millions of views. This is a clinical psychologist professor who is openly anti-Marxist (but also openly anti-fascist, and anti-antisemitic). No explanation given. Just plainly said he wasn't following the ToS but not particularly what. Only after hours of pressure from many people they reinstated it silently. We need anti-trust laws to curve this authoritarian Internet rising.
- zimpenfish 9y ago> openly anti-Marxist (but also openly anti-fascist, and anti-antisemitic) Openly anti-trans too.
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago> Anti-trans A quick (and biased) search turns up: "His employers have warned that, while they support his right to academic freedom and free speech, he could run afoul of the Ontario Human Rights code and his faculty responsibilities should he refuse to use alternative pronouns when requested." Now I'm sure there's more to the issue, but that's kind of my point - increasingly, not ceding to every demand by group X is labelled as being 'anti-X', and ending any discussion.
- gasof 9y agoI'm not sure what's wrong with the above statement? I see merit in his view that the state should not force anyone to use any particular words, and I think it is not clear at all whether one should be able to force other people to act as if they are a gender different from how they are perceived, or to force others to use specific words to speak to them, although I personally think we'll end up at "don't use force". Peterson's position on the pronouns thing (which is an oddly hot-debated issue, perhaps because it'd open the doors to more compelled speech) is that if you would ask him to use special pronouns whether he would use them would depend on his estimation of your intentions; this seems very reasonable to me, and I could also understand it if he refused altogether because he is a public figure, a free-speech advocate and a professor with tenure, and if he can't who else is going to feel like they can? It's also non-obvious to me whether the net effect of accepting transgenderism and promoting non-binary gender roles is positive. GP stated their opinion, I did too, no need for off-topic discussions. Edit: I just spotted 'JBP is antisemitic', that's just slanderous. JBP is in no way anti-semitic, citation very much needed.
- e12e 9y agoI wonder how similar automatic censorship would have affected the Spanish civil war.
- floatingatoll 9y agoCould you expand on this point?
- e12e 9y agoOne man's Freedom Fighter is another man's terrorist. [edit: Or for a different point: does this mean that US airfoce reqruitment videos for drone pilots would be censored by Google in Yemen?]
- throwawaymanbot 9y agoI feel this is going to annoy less people than the monetary change google made. So ISIS and Alt-right types/far right wing, are the only people who will care about this. And again, it's a Corporation's platform, not ours. Their rules.
- ginreaper 9y agoThis really stinks. on the syrian civil war there is very little news out of warzones but that released by Amaq, HTS, or one of many 'terrorist' organizations. And according to the US who is a terrorist, and according to russia is a terrorist is all different. Its sometimes hard to track down old footage of the war because they're all removed form youtube
- sauronlord 9y agoDisgusting. Shame on you Googlers for deciding what is "hate speech". What the fuck is that? What's "hate speech" in USA is not the same as Turkey or Australia. SHAME