10 ms·

'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

'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 ago
Yeah, 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 ago
  Ouch, 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.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    > Ouch, 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. This sort of thing from the Western left is incredibly alarming to me. Imagine hardline Christian conservatives took over America and now we live in Handmaid's Tale. You're one of the tiny minority trying to fight back. How would you feel about people in Europe apologizing for the hardliners and condemning anyone who speaks out against their culture? Obviously it's not Handmaid's Tale bad, but it's worse than you assume. My family is from Bangladesh. A third of the people from my country think I should be executed for leaving Islam: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview.[1] http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi... Bangladesh is a moderate country in the grand scheme of things--that number is 2/3 in Egypt, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Bangladesh was founded as a secular republic, but that was jettisoned and Islam was made the official religion the year before my family left the country. That was all part of a long societal shift away from the west towards the Islamic world. For years--long before any of this hit the radar of anyone at SPLC--my family used the number of women in Dhaka wearing head coverings as a barometer for the country's descent into theocracy (very rare in the 1980s, quite common today). I get its a fine line. You can't help people integrate if you can't let them adopt western values on their own terms. At the same time, some of this stuff from well-meaning liberals is really a kick to the gut of people fighting for modernity in these countries. [1] My family was never religious, but that's not a distinction they recognize over there. I can't count how many times I've gotten in a cab with a driver from south asia/the middle east, and someone has asked me "where are you from?" And if I reply "Bangladesh," the answer is invariably "oh so you're Muslim?"
    - tptacek 9y ago
      The Nawaz drama is more complicated than this, isn't it? It's not Nawaz's overt positions SPLC is objecting to so much as his actions, which appear to profit from anti-Muslim sentiment.
      - MichaelGG 9y ago
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali Why are these people necessarily wrong to include? I did a search and I found many articles on the issue, suggesting it's a semi-famous controversy, but no reliable sources (all partisan and either untrustworthy or unknown, from the far left and far right).
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Imagine that instead of criticizing a religion, Nawaz and Ali were criticizing the Republican Party. Maybe they're a bit over the top, but would it be fair to label them "anti-Republican Extremists?" Would it be a good idea to shut down such viewpoints? EDIT: It's worth watching the guy speak for himself: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/449004/anti-radical-muslim-activist-group-targeted-hate-group-southern-poverty-law-center http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/449004/anti-radical-mus.... As an apostate I think this guy is a hero.
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      There's are fundamental differences between religions and political parties, especially in this context, and you are too sophisticated to not know them (a compliment and a criticism).
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  Neither Maajid Nawaz nor Ayaan Hirsi Ali are particularly reliable or impartial commentators, to the extent that i'm surprised you'd find it 'disgusting' to describe either of them as 'Anti-Muslim Extremists' - the both almost by definition are.
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    Being anti Islam, which, as practiced by hundreds of millions, is simply not compatible with Western values, is not being anti Muslim. And extremeist? I'm not sure what they say is even remotely extreme.
darawk 9y ago
Couldn't agree more. This is extremely dangerous, and extremely poorly thought out on Google's part.
CoreXtreme 9y ago
Well, they can only flag the videos. It will still go through Youtube's review system if anyone appeals.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  What we've seen over and over again with DRM is that that's enough to shut down content, though. First, because the review system is unreliable - it's prone to acting defensively in the interests of the host (Google) and making the fastest defensible decision, regardless of accuracy. Second, because the review system is slow. Even 24-hour turnaround is slow in a setting where display rankings risk exponential falloff if they don't get traction quickly. A brief delay on a Facebook post or Youtube video can be a death sentence in terms of engagement. I'm not sure this system will have problems; "input from" doesn't mean "giving control to". But I certainly wouldn't want to rely on the review system as a reason to trust that nothing legitimate will be restricted.
Animats 9y ago
I was about to post that. Those groups have very specific agendas. They shouldn't be allowed to block articles which disagree with their agenda. Here's Dabiq, ISIS's propaganda magazine.[1] It's well-produced and in English. See what the other side wants. There are the usual rants: "We ask Allah to support the mujāhidīn of the Islamic State against the agents of the tawāghīt and the crusaders until the banner of the Khilāfah is raised high above Istanbul and Vatican City". Their strongest ire is raised against Arabs who oppose ISIS. The West is just the enemy, but Islamists who oppose them are committing apostasy. They're opposed to democracy on principle. Allah must rule, and that means autocratic rule by religious leaders. "Legislation is not but for Allah". There's a concern that some people will be taken in by this stuff. That's only a problem for people who haven't seen enough extremist material to be able to evaluate it. There's a certain similarity to all that stuff, along the lines of "We're good, because God is on our side, and we have to kill the other guys because they're evil." This message is available in Christian, Jewish, and Islamic flavors. Kids should see all of those in school, to immunize them against such messages. Will "trusted flaggers" be allowed to make Dabiq inaccessable? ("Maybe they is not evil. Maybe they is just enemies." - Poul Anderson) [1] https://clarionproject.org/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq-50/ https://clarionproject.org/islamic-state-isis-isil-propagand...
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  People are taken in by this stuff. You don't have the Manchester suicide bombing without it. It's not an abstract issue, it actually happens.
  - sdoering 9y ago
    Well. People got taken by lots of stuff over the centuries. Take the Bible for example. How many people got killed because of that book. Should we ban it?
    - hyperion2010 9y ago
      Funny, the event that triggered the most brutal war in European history was actually the unbanning of the Bible.
whipoodle 9y ago
I know what you mean, and I don't like some of those groups either, but speech and the limiting of it is an unavoidably political issue. Objectivity isn't truly an option here.
biggerbistro 9y ago
I wonder if our respected peers on the Left will ever decide that their politics are the ones supported by "The System" and that they are perhaps not the rebels they thought they were? When Google and Facebook (among others) are explicitly enforcing censorship favoring the leftist worldview it really makes me wonder who stands to benefit and whether it is done with good intentions.
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  Getting their politics injected into "The System" was an explicit policy goal of the Left. The term typically used is "entryism".
  - tnone 9y ago
    Yes but the amount of griping over the need to fight the status quo is absolutely there to keep the bulk from noticing they are the status quo.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  I don't believe being against hate is a "leftist" worldview; it's a widely accepted and healthy one. In a way, you agree: > their politics are the ones supported by "The System" and that they are perhaps not the rebels they thought they were? Certainly there is a very well-established and long history, and continuing practice, of prejudice in government against (almost any group besides white Christian males, as a shorthand for a long list). There is also now a countervailing force, protecting the freedoms and asserting the interests of the oppressed groups. The existence of both forces can't seriously be questioned. But going back to my first sentence: Really, that's the fundamental debate going on in this HN thread and in many others: Some assert, implicitly, that the hate groups are just another point of view, and that they are inherently no better or worse than other POVs. Others, including Google, disagree. Sometimes that argument is made using extreme relativism or political correctness: All POVs have the same merit and deserve equal treatment; it's politically incorrect to discriminate at all. While that's an interesting and valuable philosophical discussion - how do we distinguish perfectly between good and bad - we can and must still distinguish between them. We don't have to wait for the perfect philosophical solution. But we can approach the question with reason: First, I believe that many (not all) arguing that the hate groups should be heard simply support the hate groups - it has nothing to do with public interest or freedom of speech; probably that's true on the other side too. Second, a more reasoned argument: Why should we tolerate groups who don't tolerate others? It breaks a fudamental social contract of free societies: If you want me to respect you, you must respect me.
cmahler7 9y ago
Fighting WrongThink is double plus good comrade! In unrelated news Jordan Peterson, a University of Toronto professor with 350k subscribers was banned today. He's about as centrist as you can get but occasionally speaks against marxism and postmoderism. Apparently not being communist is now terrorism according to youtube.
- tehwebguy 9y ago
  And reinstated within a day. That's how reporting content works at scale - it takes a minute to get it right.
  - tnone 9y ago
    Reinstated mysteriously after he explicitly appealed, and got a reply he did not qualify for reactivation because of unspecified policy violations. Let's not pretend this system is doing what it says on the tin. He was reinstated because they realized how it looked and because he has the clout to make a fuss. The next potential Jordan Peterson will be snuffed out before that can happen. Which is exactly how these Trust and Safety councils like it. Soft power with plausible deniability, like the two faced authoritarians they are. It's always set up as a one way ratchet, they can never allow this stuff to be rolled back in any form. Disagreement is harassment, after all, and harassers are guilty until proven super guilty.
    - tehwebguy 9y ago
      True, for better or for worse Google does this with basically everything. They still haven't apologized or corrected their major mistake nearly destroying Fark.com last December.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > He's about as centrist as you can get but occasionally speaks against marxism and postmoderism. He also occasionally says transphobic things about gender pronouns.
  - 9y ago
forapurpose 9y ago
> 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). Can you provide examples of this?
matthewmacleod 9y ago
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). This is an outright lie. There are an astonishing plurality of mainstream, right-wing views about religion and immigration in every European country.
- throw13578 9y ago
  There is a big right wing, but it has faced repression. Being classified as hate speakers, with all that that entails, is one of those aspects.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    What does it entail exactly? You get negative opinion from some people on twitter, but it doesn't stop you being on the news, political programmes, political parties or in the newspapers.
bjourne 9y ago
The ADL, which fights Antisemitism, has also included advocacy for Israel in their agenda. See f.e this report in which several peace groups are wrongly accused of being "anti-Israel": https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/israel-international/Top-10-Anti-Israel-Groups-in-America.pdf https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf... The ADL is of course free to propagate for whatever they want, but it being included in the Trusted Flagger program might lead to more news stories like this one: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/09/facebook-blocks-accounts-palestinian-journalists-160925095126952.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/09/facebook-blocks-accoun... The reason for mentioning this is that it is not only right-wing ideas that will be censored. Groups working for ending the occupation and advocating peace between Israel and Palestine are generally associated with the left-wing. They will equally be at risk of being silenced with programs like this.
gtufano 9y ago
> 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). That's because last time rightwing speeches about religion and races (that's "immigration-related" really) were permitted and tolerated in Europe the result has been WWII and the Shoa, probably.
- biggerbistro 9y ago
  You could just as easily say "the last time leftwing speeches about equality and social justice were permitted and tolerated in Russia the result has been The Cold War and the gulags". Neither side has a clean history and it is quite unfair to deny either side participation just because of past mistakes.
Iv 9y ago
I see many ex-muslim atheist complaining that their calls for critical thinking is often successfully flaged as hate speech and removed from Facebook and Youtube. And yes, being in Europe, the "no hate speech" laws make me cringe, even if they are not really abused nowadays, censorship is censorship and seeing "my guys" doing it does not make me particularly comfortable.
throwawaymanbot 9y ago
If you dont like this, its not hard to get your own video codecs for your own website, and stream your own videos/content. Google owns a private platform, its their rules.

civilian 9y ago

Yeah, 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 ago
Ouch, 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.
- rayiner 9y ago
  > Ouch, 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. This sort of thing from the Western left is incredibly alarming to me. Imagine hardline Christian conservatives took over America and now we live in Handmaid's Tale. You're one of the tiny minority trying to fight back. How would you feel about people in Europe apologizing for the hardliners and condemning anyone who speaks out against their culture? Obviously it's not Handmaid's Tale bad, but it's worse than you assume. My family is from Bangladesh. A third of the people from my country think I should be executed for leaving Islam: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview.[1] http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi... Bangladesh is a moderate country in the grand scheme of things--that number is 2/3 in Egypt, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Bangladesh was founded as a secular republic, but that was jettisoned and Islam was made the official religion the year before my family left the country. That was all part of a long societal shift away from the west towards the Islamic world. For years--long before any of this hit the radar of anyone at SPLC--my family used the number of women in Dhaka wearing head coverings as a barometer for the country's descent into theocracy (very rare in the 1980s, quite common today). I get its a fine line. You can't help people integrate if you can't let them adopt western values on their own terms. At the same time, some of this stuff from well-meaning liberals is really a kick to the gut of people fighting for modernity in these countries. [1] My family was never religious, but that's not a distinction they recognize over there. I can't count how many times I've gotten in a cab with a driver from south asia/the middle east, and someone has asked me "where are you from?" And if I reply "Bangladesh," the answer is invariably "oh so you're Muslim?"
  - tptacek 9y ago
    The Nawaz drama is more complicated than this, isn't it? It's not Nawaz's overt positions SPLC is objecting to so much as his actions, which appear to profit from anti-Muslim sentiment.
    - MichaelGG 9y ago
forapurpose 9y ago
> Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali Why are these people necessarily wrong to include? I did a search and I found many articles on the issue, suggesting it's a semi-famous controversy, but no reliable sources (all partisan and either untrustworthy or unknown, from the far left and far right).
- rayiner 9y ago
  Imagine that instead of criticizing a religion, Nawaz and Ali were criticizing the Republican Party. Maybe they're a bit over the top, but would it be fair to label them "anti-Republican Extremists?" Would it be a good idea to shut down such viewpoints? EDIT: It's worth watching the guy speak for himself: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/449004/anti-radical-muslim-activist-group-targeted-hate-group-southern-poverty-law-center http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/449004/anti-radical-mus.... As an apostate I think this guy is a hero.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    There's are fundamental differences between religions and political parties, especially in this context, and you are too sophisticated to not know them (a compliment and a criticism).
matthewmacleod 9y ago
Neither Maajid Nawaz nor Ayaan Hirsi Ali are particularly reliable or impartial commentators, to the extent that i'm surprised you'd find it 'disgusting' to describe either of them as 'Anti-Muslim Extremists' - the both almost by definition are.
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  Being anti Islam, which, as practiced by hundreds of millions, is simply not compatible with Western values, is not being anti Muslim. And extremeist? I'm not sure what they say is even remotely extreme.

darawk 9y ago

Couldn't agree more. This is extremely dangerous, and extremely poorly thought out on Google's part.

CoreXtreme 9y ago

Well, they can only flag the videos. It will still go through Youtube's review system if anyone appeals.

Bartweiss 9y ago
What we've seen over and over again with DRM is that that's enough to shut down content, though. First, because the review system is unreliable - it's prone to acting defensively in the interests of the host (Google) and making the fastest defensible decision, regardless of accuracy. Second, because the review system is slow. Even 24-hour turnaround is slow in a setting where display rankings risk exponential falloff if they don't get traction quickly. A brief delay on a Facebook post or Youtube video can be a death sentence in terms of engagement. I'm not sure this system will have problems; "input from" doesn't mean "giving control to". But I certainly wouldn't want to rely on the review system as a reason to trust that nothing legitimate will be restricted.

Animats 9y ago

I was about to post that. Those groups have very specific agendas. They shouldn't be allowed to block articles which disagree with their agenda. Here's Dabiq, ISIS's propaganda magazine.[1] It's well-produced and in English. See what the other side wants. There are the usual rants: "We ask Allah to support the mujāhidīn of the Islamic State against the agents of the tawāghīt and the crusaders until the banner of the Khilāfah is raised high above Istanbul and Vatican City". Their strongest ire is raised against Arabs who oppose ISIS. The West is just the enemy, but Islamists who oppose them are committing apostasy. They're opposed to democracy on principle. Allah must rule, and that means autocratic rule by religious leaders. "Legislation is not but for Allah". There's a concern that some people will be taken in by this stuff. That's only a problem for people who haven't seen enough extremist material to be able to evaluate it. There's a certain similarity to all that stuff, along the lines of "We're good, because God is on our side, and we have to kill the other guys because they're evil." This message is available in Christian, Jewish, and Islamic flavors. Kids should see all of those in school, to immunize them against such messages. Will "trusted flaggers" be allowed to make Dabiq inaccessable? ("Maybe they is not evil. Maybe they is just enemies." - Poul Anderson) [1] https://clarionproject.org/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq-50/ https://clarionproject.org/islamic-state-isis-isil-propagand...

aaron-lebo 9y ago
People are taken in by this stuff. You don't have the Manchester suicide bombing without it. It's not an abstract issue, it actually happens.
- sdoering 9y ago
  Well. People got taken by lots of stuff over the centuries. Take the Bible for example. How many people got killed because of that book. Should we ban it?
  - hyperion2010 9y ago
    Funny, the event that triggered the most brutal war in European history was actually the unbanning of the Bible.

whipoodle 9y ago

I know what you mean, and I don't like some of those groups either, but speech and the limiting of it is an unavoidably political issue. Objectivity isn't truly an option here.

biggerbistro 9y ago

I wonder if our respected peers on the Left will ever decide that their politics are the ones supported by "The System" and that they are perhaps not the rebels they thought they were? When Google and Facebook (among others) are explicitly enforcing censorship favoring the leftist worldview it really makes me wonder who stands to benefit and whether it is done with good intentions.

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
Getting their politics injected into "The System" was an explicit policy goal of the Left. The term typically used is "entryism".
- tnone 9y ago
  Yes but the amount of griping over the need to fight the status quo is absolutely there to keep the bulk from noticing they are the status quo.
forapurpose 9y ago
I don't believe being against hate is a "leftist" worldview; it's a widely accepted and healthy one. In a way, you agree: > their politics are the ones supported by "The System" and that they are perhaps not the rebels they thought they were? Certainly there is a very well-established and long history, and continuing practice, of prejudice in government against (almost any group besides white Christian males, as a shorthand for a long list). There is also now a countervailing force, protecting the freedoms and asserting the interests of the oppressed groups. The existence of both forces can't seriously be questioned. But going back to my first sentence: Really, that's the fundamental debate going on in this HN thread and in many others: Some assert, implicitly, that the hate groups are just another point of view, and that they are inherently no better or worse than other POVs. Others, including Google, disagree. Sometimes that argument is made using extreme relativism or political correctness: All POVs have the same merit and deserve equal treatment; it's politically incorrect to discriminate at all. While that's an interesting and valuable philosophical discussion - how do we distinguish perfectly between good and bad - we can and must still distinguish between them. We don't have to wait for the perfect philosophical solution. But we can approach the question with reason: First, I believe that many (not all) arguing that the hate groups should be heard simply support the hate groups - it has nothing to do with public interest or freedom of speech; probably that's true on the other side too. Second, a more reasoned argument: Why should we tolerate groups who don't tolerate others? It breaks a fudamental social contract of free societies: If you want me to respect you, you must respect me.

cmahler7 9y ago

Fighting WrongThink is double plus good comrade! In unrelated news Jordan Peterson, a University of Toronto professor with 350k subscribers was banned today. He's about as centrist as you can get but occasionally speaks against marxism and postmoderism. Apparently not being communist is now terrorism according to youtube.

tehwebguy 9y ago
And reinstated within a day. That's how reporting content works at scale - it takes a minute to get it right.
- tnone 9y ago
  Reinstated mysteriously after he explicitly appealed, and got a reply he did not qualify for reactivation because of unspecified policy violations. Let's not pretend this system is doing what it says on the tin. He was reinstated because they realized how it looked and because he has the clout to make a fuss. The next potential Jordan Peterson will be snuffed out before that can happen. Which is exactly how these Trust and Safety councils like it. Soft power with plausible deniability, like the two faced authoritarians they are. It's always set up as a one way ratchet, they can never allow this stuff to be rolled back in any form. Disagreement is harassment, after all, and harassers are guilty until proven super guilty.
  - tehwebguy 9y ago
    True, for better or for worse Google does this with basically everything. They still haven't apologized or corrected their major mistake nearly destroying Fark.com last December.
zimpenfish 9y ago
> He's about as centrist as you can get but occasionally speaks against marxism and postmoderism. He also occasionally says transphobic things about gender pronouns.
- 9y ago

forapurpose 9y ago

matthewmacleod 9y ago

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). This is an outright lie. There are an astonishing plurality of mainstream, right-wing views about religion and immigration in every European country.

throw13578 9y ago
There is a big right wing, but it has faced repression. Being classified as hate speakers, with all that that entails, is one of those aspects.
- pjc50 9y ago
  What does it entail exactly? You get negative opinion from some people on twitter, but it doesn't stop you being on the news, political programmes, political parties or in the newspapers.

bjourne 9y ago

The ADL, which fights Antisemitism, has also included advocacy for Israel in their agenda. See f.e this report in which several peace groups are wrongly accused of being "anti-Israel": https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/israel-international/Top-10-Anti-Israel-Groups-in-America.pdf https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf... The ADL is of course free to propagate for whatever they want, but it being included in the Trusted Flagger program might lead to more news stories like this one: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/09/facebook-blocks-accounts-palestinian-journalists-160925095126952.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/09/facebook-blocks-accoun... The reason for mentioning this is that it is not only right-wing ideas that will be censored. Groups working for ending the occupation and advocating peace between Israel and Palestine are generally associated with the left-wing. They will equally be at risk of being silenced with programs like this.

gtufano 9y ago

> 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). That's because last time rightwing speeches about religion and races (that's "immigration-related" really) were permitted and tolerated in Europe the result has been WWII and the Shoa, probably.

biggerbistro 9y ago
You could just as easily say "the last time leftwing speeches about equality and social justice were permitted and tolerated in Russia the result has been The Cold War and the gulags". Neither side has a clean history and it is quite unfair to deny either side participation just because of past mistakes.

Iv 9y ago

I see many ex-muslim atheist complaining that their calls for critical thinking is often successfully flaged as hate speech and removed from Facebook and Youtube. And yes, being in Europe, the "no hate speech" laws make me cringe, even if they are not really abused nowadays, censorship is censorship and seeing "my guys" doing it does not make me particularly comfortable.

throwawaymanbot 9y ago

If you dont like this, its not hard to get your own video codecs for your own website, and stream your own videos/content. Google owns a private platform, its their rules.