9 ms·

People who document violent extremism are being shut down in Youtube’s crackdown

45 points by pdkl95 7y ago

Fjolsvith 7y ago
To be expected. With liberal militants ramping up their activity in the US [1], its important to keep the masses from learning what is going on. 1. https://www.infowars.com/watch-live-democrats-activate-militant-wing-as-treason-charges-loom/ https://www.infowars.com/watch-live-democrats-activate-milit...
maxdamantus 7y ago
So our advertising overlords continue to be the ones that determine what information we're exposed to and what products we're meant to desire. In honour of our great advertisement-driven society, we shall click that suggested "Up next" video on Youtube, and continue to scroll through that infinite Facebook wall which is so miraculously calculated to maintain our attention. There's nothing wrong with this, right?
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  If I leave it running long enough I always end up with mind-draining pop music. It is a pure nightmare. But seriously, people promoting rule changes so that advertisers can exclude anything sinful are certainly also against anything that makes Youtube interesting.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >But seriously, people promoting rule changes so that advertisers can exclude anything sinful are certainly also against anything that makes Youtube interesting. "sin" isn't the only interesting thing about Youtube. I watch plenty of content which is both non-violent and interesting.
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      I choose that word to highlight similarities to deprecated moral authorities. Not even because of the morals at hand, but because of the insufficiently legitimized authority. For example for Europe: sex => ok; violence => not ok compared to the US: sex => not ok; violence => ok What we will end up with: sex => not ok; violence => not ok What might be best for educated civil society: sex => ok; violence => ok Pretty reductionist, but that is where I see Youtube heading towards to.
torgian 7y ago
Looks to be time to use other video platforms then?
narag 7y ago
There are two contradictory explanations in the article: that the channel was removed by "faulty automatic moderation" vs. "prompted the company to play a game of both-sidesism" so it was done on purpose.
Shivetya 7y ago
tl;dr I hate censorship. if its illegal then prosecute them, but this isn't about legality They have pretty much blocked historical videos containing much about NAZI Germany as well. [1] Going to be real annoying to lose some classic comics which definitely would not pass the hate/sensitivity crowd today. I understand the concern youtube has but once you go down this path you pretty much are rewriting history. that is what they need to understand, the past is exactly that, a representation of the views and outlooks of the people and places depicted. If this continues how long before other countries demand to have content their censors deem offensive removed? Why would we be in position to tell them, no we don't find it offensive, when we don't give them the same right in return. You can be offended all you want but that does not mean you get to prevent others from viewing it. With regards to new content postings they obviously need a system which first includes trusted accounts, then their algorithm, then an challenge and remediation system that is well documented and enforced. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/06/youtube-blocks-history-teachers-uploading-archive-videos-of-hitler https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/06/youtube-b...
- threeseed 7y ago
  Set up your own website and host the content. Nobody is removing that ability. You just don't have the right to tell a private company what content they must allow.
  - jmkni 7y ago
    Hosting video isn't cheap, especially when the traffic picks up. While in theory you aren't losing that ability, in practice most people can't afford to.
    - kthejoker2 7y ago
      So .. Forcing other people to pay to host your "not cheap" content is okay? Maybe I can use my neighbor's power to operate a giant billboard with my personal views? I mean, it's not cheap, but I really think my POV deserves the largest possible platform. Anything less is effectively my neighbor censoring me.
threeseed 7y ago
They are largely being demonetised not shut down. And for good reason. Advertisers do not want to be associated with violent content. Regardless of whether the content is serving some greater cause or not.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  And it would be good to listen to sensibilities of advertisers for a platform that exists because of creative content of its users? I think not, Tim.
  - dageshi 7y ago
    Does everyone have a right to advertisements before their content?
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      Whoever pays creates is basically the fundamental rule I commit my life to and that I try to see realized for everyone. People think I am an asshole, but I believe I am merely misunderstood.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
    > I think not, Tim. You, sir, are a man of culture
- stackola 7y ago
  >Advertisers do not want to be associated with violent content Which is why there is no money in Boxing, UFC, action movies and so on. It's got nothing to do with violence.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- mtgx 7y ago
  > Advertisers do not want to be associated with violent content True. They do not want that. > And for good reason. I disagree. That's not a good enough reason to censor such information from the public.
SuoDuanDao 7y ago
Anyone got a favourite Youtube-alternative they'd like to plug?
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  https://d.tube/ https://d.tube/
- throwaway77384 7y ago
  Vimeo and PeerTube are your best bets.
mikorym 7y ago
So in short, they are demonetising/shutting down also the ones trying to counter violent extremism by proper record holding and public accountability?
- 0815test 7y ago
  Yup. It doesn't have to make sense as a policy, y'know; it's all about appearances, public image and not wanting to be associated with "sensitive" stuff of any sort. Documentaries about Nazism, with historical imagery? Exposes of violent extremism? No way, that stuff is way too icky!
  - krapp 7y ago
    It's basically the same reason no one but J-List wants to advertise on 4chan.
- imglorp 7y ago
  It's a fine line between portrayal and promoting, such a fine line that some people might not see where that distinction lies and then mistake one intent for the other. A truly neutral documentary will present the facts and lead you to understand the participants mindset, even if you're not in agreement. I can't imagine some bot will get this right, but I feel we're morally obligated to retain the material or we'll get even worse at telling the difference.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
    I think the whole point is that some people don't want you to understand what the others think. In 2019 even empathizing with certain people, or trying to follow the logical steps that lead them to their views is considered a sin by some people.
    - 0815test 7y ago
      > In 2019 even empathizing with certain people, or trying to follow the logical steps that lead them to their views is considered a sin by some people. It's almost like we're sliding back to 1935. There is no shared understanding of the fact that empathizing with people - all people, regardless of their diversity - and trying to understand their views is what leads you to the most correct views over time. It's why the modern West won, and its adversaries lost. I'm starting to think that some people really do hate us for this freedom - they want to be told what to think, and find the very idea of intellectual curiosity or openness to be inherently offensive.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
stunt 7y ago
I wonder if any of decentralized internet projects are building something equivalent to Youtube or not!
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  https://d.tube/ https://d.tube/ ?
- DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
  I read a while ago that there's a platform to access videos in some block chain, similar to youtube. Don't know what became of that though.
  - stackola 7y ago
    Bitchute[1] works with WebTorrents, maybe that's what you mean. [1] https://www.bitchute.com/ https://www.bitchute.com/
- cabalamat 7y ago
  PeerTube https://joinpeertube.org/en/ https://joinpeertube.org/en/
neilv 7y ago
What I think would help is if we don't use a term like "extremism", which sounds like a term of sketchy censorship justification. What's "extreme"? Is two men wanting to marry each other extreme? Is advocating for freedom of abortion extreme? Is criticizing the ruling national party extreme? Is saying that climate change is influenced by human actions extreme? Is exposing instances of 'bad apple' abuses of power extreme? There are a lot of people who will answer yes to all of those, in the US alone. ("Of course we believe in freedom of speech, but certainly extremism should be censored!") I suggest not handing totalitarian censorship tools like the vague "extremism" to politicians and companies.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  > What I think would help is if we don't use a term like "extremism", which sounds like a term of sketchy censorship justification. Well, advocating for genocide on Muslims, spreading deadly propaganda such as antivaxx or "great replacement" or such certainly qualifies as "extremism".
- Angostura 7y ago
  Your preferred term is? Or are you suggesting that no content should be removed, because of the difficulty of defining the word?
  - neilv 7y ago
    The US already has laws and other mechanisms for handling calls for violence, etc. For problems of manipulation, I suggest the solution is not a politician or company getting to choose who gets to manipulate, but rather, becoming more resilient against manipulation.
    - krapp 7y ago
      Ok, but your earlier comment was that we shouldn't even use the term "extremism," so what term would you prefer that couldn't be abused in the same way?
brokenkebab 7y ago
I do not sympathize with Google, but Boingboing looks ridiculous here. Its contributors have been advocating for modern pro-censorship movement, which pushes for filtering of content because of a ever growing list of allegedly offensive things, and signs. But wait a minute, they aren't happy with the results. What could go wrong. Now, as AI doesn't seem to cope with their demands, what will they want as a solution? Politically correct humans reviewing every video?
- pdkl95 7y ago
  > what will they want as a solution? The same thing we use when enforcing the rules of any infrastructure: publicly accountable and transparent due process. These problems will continue until big tech implements a proper rule of law[1]. They will continue[2] to be responsible for these difficult decisions as long as their platforms idea of justice is the rule of man[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law [2] https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024060/Still-Logged-In-What-AR https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024060/Still-Logged-In-What-A... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_man
  - brokenkebab 7y ago
    Not sure I clearly see your position. If platforms should abstain from censorship unless proper legal process forces them to do so is what you mean - I would not argue. But it's not the point of my comment. Pro-cesorship movement never advocated for proper due process, they want quick, peferably automatical "deplatforming".
    - pdkl95 7y ago
      > proper legal process forces them to do so That's not what I'm talking about. The platforms need to create a new form of "legal process" where these issues are defined and adjudicated in an open process. Google et al are de facto a new layer of government, and they need to act like it. Currently, they are trying to act like a "(mostly) benevolent dictatorship" and finding out that the hard way that you can't actually please everyone. The proper way to handle calls for censorship/banning/etc is to tell them to take their grievances to the formalized judicial process and/or argue for changing that process in the formalized, open "legislature". For a much better explanation, I highly recommend watching Raph Koster's talk (my previous [2]). Even though it was at GDC and initially talks about VR and MMOs, the talk is not actually about games; it's about the ethical and social responsibilities of creating social spaces, and the may ways we've tried to solve their problems in the past.
mkettn 7y ago
If Youtube blocks their content, they can move to another video hosting site or start their own. No big deal nowadays.
- DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
  Not for the things described in the article, no. If you really just want to document things, you can host videos by yourself and just offer them for download. What makes youtube important isn't that they host your videos, but that they get people to watch them.
qrbLPHiKpiux 7y ago
There is a bigger problem - the reliance on someone else (YouTube, et al). When the masses rely on one person, then that one person changes his mind, you get what you get. YouTube, really, is just someone else’s computer. He doesn’t like how it’s being used, he fixes that. I’m not surprised here. There has to be a shift to self-reliance with this sort of thing.
DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
Never heared of boingboing.net, but after reading > Steven Crowder's hate channel I don't think it's a very trustworthy source of information.
- bencoder 7y ago
  > Never heared of boingboing.net That's a genuine surprise! You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boing_Boing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boing_Boing > > Steven Crowder's hate channel I don't see this phrase in the article, perhaps it was removed. But, regardless, it seems quite apt in this context: https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1134264395717103617 https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1134264395717103617 > I don't think it's a very trustworthy source of information Use of a single, seemingly accurate, phrase seems like an odd reason to distrust a source
  - DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
    > I don't see this phrase in the article It was in another article, which is directly linked in this one. > But, regardless, it seems quite apt in this context No it's not. He's just being a conservative asshole. > Use of a single, seemingly accurate, phrase seems like an odd reason to distrust a source It's not just the single phrase, but what you can extrapolate from it. Calling someone a hate channel is a pretty serious deal these days, and just throwing such an accusation around like that shows that at the very least whoever wrote that article doesn't in the slightest bit intend to show the complete picture. And no, I won't trust a source that I caught once telling only half the story on things where I wouldn't even know.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
hackerbabz 7y ago
Why does anyone think this needs to be an all or nothing approach? First step: remove the literal nazis. Nazis are bad and anyone who says otherwise is bad. Anyone who screams, “censorship!” About removing nazis is defending nazis. Second step: Evaluate what worked and what didn’t work about removing nazis. Correct mistakes. Third step: Pick the next most evil topic after nazis and repeat.
- DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
  You got that wrong mate. Third step: Broaden the definition of nazi and repeat.
- dalbasal 7y ago
  I disagree. If you had your own website where choices of this kind need to be made.. sure, you can go ahead and make determinations based on principle. Your own definitions and evaluations of Nazism, evil, eviler and such will shine through, especially the priority list. Your own values will shine through the "what worked?" Step. Overall though, it would be totally fine. You are a person (presumably a decent one) and your principled choices are a great way to govern your website. YouTube is a major part of global media, a major subsidiary of Google/alphabet and a major channel through which democratic politics, speech and social life is conducted around the world. YouTube makes more mayors, parliamentarians an public intellectuals than they likely even bother to know about. It's an institution, in every sense. Ways of doing things that are perfectly workable for a person do not translate to institutional scale.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Grue3 7y ago
  Fourth step: when they came for me there was no one left to speak up.
  - hackerbabz 7y ago
    No. They came for the nazis. There is no slope from nazis to good people.
bronzeage 7y ago
censorship doesn't work and will never work. if you cut someone's tongue you only prove you're afraid of what he has to say. the best solution is to fight them back by showing them the opposite ideas. don't censor Nazis, put as advertisements and suggestions to positive content highlighting why they are wrong.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  The allegedly worst site of actual national socialists had some badly drawn anime comics with very questionable messages and a minuscule user base. They were at the lowest bottom of the barrel for years. Then censorship ambitions flared up and look where we are now... Not that rational arguments seem to work in this discussion...
  - eesmith 7y ago
    "Nazis" in these sorts of discussions is broadly meant to include 'actual national socialists', neo-nazis, white nationalists and white supremacists, and their sympathizers, stooges, and fellow travelers. This makes it a form of metonymy. Since the broader term includes more materials than "badly drawn anime comics", it appears you do not understand what most people usually mean by "Nazis". (To confirm my suspicion, I see at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19729764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19729764 that you used the phrase "national socialists knew very well", suggesting that you consider it as a term for people in the past, and not those in the present. How then did any of them have web sites, and were interested in anime?) By the way, many people who, seemingly hyper-pedantically narrow the use of "Nazi" for "actual national socialists" or (seen elsewhere) "members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party" are often deliberately derailing the topic. My advice is to not follow practices which might mistakenly get you labeled as a Nazi sympathizer. In any case, the HN guideline is to assume the "strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize". "Actual national socialists" is a much weaker and not really justifiable interpretation.
    - 0815test 7y ago
      Well, if we're going to do that, I think this extended "Nazi" label should also include militant Islamic anti-Semitism, as from ISIL, Hezballah, Hamas and the like. Since there is a fairly clear line of descent from the early-20th-c. anti-Semitism that Hitler drew onto, to present-day Islamic fundamentalism and extremism.
bartimus 7y ago
When running ads, Youtube allows you to target certain audiences. Perhaps they should just allow people to target (or block) certain content creators in a similar manner. Choose target video controversial threshold: 0 =O===== 100
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  Who gets to rank the videos?
  - bartimus 7y ago
    I suppose you could look at the number of views / comments / likes / dislikes ratios to determine a level of controversy. Youtube viewers are already grouped into various audiences. So their behavior towards certain video's tells something about the video.
YayamiOmate 7y ago
Regardless of platform and motivation, there is a more general issue. There is no fine well defined line between public documentation and promotion. Raising awarness is a form of promotion. Even if material is ultimately objective. There is no going around it, so it's always going to be subjective and leave someone unhappy, either for material being present or not present.
tempodox 7y ago
When we had nation states, we had free speech. Now we have companies and surveillance capitalism and we're back in the dark ages. Centuries of civic progress, payed for with blood, sold for the consumption of crappy content and evaporated in just two decades. Looks like Enlightenment has failed after all.

45 points by pdkl95 7y ago

To be expected. With liberal militants ramping up their activity in the US [1], its important to keep the masses from learning what is going on. 1. https://www.infowars.com/watch-live-democrats-activate-militant-wing-as-treason-charges-loom/ https://www.infowars.com/watch-live-democrats-activate-milit...

maxdamantus 7y ago

So our advertising overlords continue to be the ones that determine what information we're exposed to and what products we're meant to desire. In honour of our great advertisement-driven society, we shall click that suggested "Up next" video on Youtube, and continue to scroll through that infinite Facebook wall which is so miraculously calculated to maintain our attention. There's nothing wrong with this, right?

raxxorrax 7y ago
If I leave it running long enough I always end up with mind-draining pop music. It is a pure nightmare. But seriously, people promoting rule changes so that advertisers can exclude anything sinful are certainly also against anything that makes Youtube interesting.
- krapp 7y ago
  >But seriously, people promoting rule changes so that advertisers can exclude anything sinful are certainly also against anything that makes Youtube interesting. "sin" isn't the only interesting thing about Youtube. I watch plenty of content which is both non-violent and interesting.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    I choose that word to highlight similarities to deprecated moral authorities. Not even because of the morals at hand, but because of the insufficiently legitimized authority. For example for Europe: sex => ok; violence => not ok compared to the US: sex => not ok; violence => ok What we will end up with: sex => not ok; violence => not ok What might be best for educated civil society: sex => ok; violence => ok Pretty reductionist, but that is where I see Youtube heading towards to.

torgian 7y ago

Looks to be time to use other video platforms then?

narag 7y ago

There are two contradictory explanations in the article: that the channel was removed by "faulty automatic moderation" vs. "prompted the company to play a game of both-sidesism" so it was done on purpose.

Shivetya 7y ago

tl;dr I hate censorship. if its illegal then prosecute them, but this isn't about legality They have pretty much blocked historical videos containing much about NAZI Germany as well. [1] Going to be real annoying to lose some classic comics which definitely would not pass the hate/sensitivity crowd today. I understand the concern youtube has but once you go down this path you pretty much are rewriting history. that is what they need to understand, the past is exactly that, a representation of the views and outlooks of the people and places depicted. If this continues how long before other countries demand to have content their censors deem offensive removed? Why would we be in position to tell them, no we don't find it offensive, when we don't give them the same right in return. You can be offended all you want but that does not mean you get to prevent others from viewing it. With regards to new content postings they obviously need a system which first includes trusted accounts, then their algorithm, then an challenge and remediation system that is well documented and enforced. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/06/youtube-blocks-history-teachers-uploading-archive-videos-of-hitler https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/06/youtube-b...

threeseed 7y ago
Set up your own website and host the content. Nobody is removing that ability. You just don't have the right to tell a private company what content they must allow.
- jmkni 7y ago
  Hosting video isn't cheap, especially when the traffic picks up. While in theory you aren't losing that ability, in practice most people can't afford to.
  - kthejoker2 7y ago
    So .. Forcing other people to pay to host your "not cheap" content is okay? Maybe I can use my neighbor's power to operate a giant billboard with my personal views? I mean, it's not cheap, but I really think my POV deserves the largest possible platform. Anything less is effectively my neighbor censoring me.

threeseed 7y ago

They are largely being demonetised not shut down. And for good reason. Advertisers do not want to be associated with violent content. Regardless of whether the content is serving some greater cause or not.

raxxorrax 7y ago
And it would be good to listen to sensibilities of advertisers for a platform that exists because of creative content of its users? I think not, Tim.
- dageshi 7y ago
  Does everyone have a right to advertisements before their content?
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Whoever pays creates is basically the fundamental rule I commit my life to and that I try to see realized for everyone. People think I am an asshole, but I believe I am merely misunderstood.
- DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
  > I think not, Tim. You, sir, are a man of culture
stackola 7y ago
>Advertisers do not want to be associated with violent content Which is why there is no money in Boxing, UFC, action movies and so on. It's got nothing to do with violence.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
mtgx 7y ago
> Advertisers do not want to be associated with violent content True. They do not want that. > And for good reason. I disagree. That's not a good enough reason to censor such information from the public.

SuoDuanDao 7y ago

Anyone got a favourite Youtube-alternative they'd like to plug?

Fjolsvith 7y ago
https://d.tube/ https://d.tube/
throwaway77384 7y ago
Vimeo and PeerTube are your best bets.

mikorym 7y ago

So in short, they are demonetising/shutting down also the ones trying to counter violent extremism by proper record holding and public accountability?

0815test 7y ago
Yup. It doesn't have to make sense as a policy, y'know; it's all about appearances, public image and not wanting to be associated with "sensitive" stuff of any sort. Documentaries about Nazism, with historical imagery? Exposes of violent extremism? No way, that stuff is way too icky!
- krapp 7y ago
  It's basically the same reason no one but J-List wants to advertise on 4chan.
imglorp 7y ago
It's a fine line between portrayal and promoting, such a fine line that some people might not see where that distinction lies and then mistake one intent for the other. A truly neutral documentary will present the facts and lead you to understand the participants mindset, even if you're not in agreement. I can't imagine some bot will get this right, but I feel we're morally obligated to retain the material or we'll get even worse at telling the difference.
- DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
  I think the whole point is that some people don't want you to understand what the others think. In 2019 even empathizing with certain people, or trying to follow the logical steps that lead them to their views is considered a sin by some people.
  - 0815test 7y ago
    > In 2019 even empathizing with certain people, or trying to follow the logical steps that lead them to their views is considered a sin by some people. It's almost like we're sliding back to 1935. There is no shared understanding of the fact that empathizing with people - all people, regardless of their diversity - and trying to understand their views is what leads you to the most correct views over time. It's why the modern West won, and its adversaries lost. I'm starting to think that some people really do hate us for this freedom - they want to be told what to think, and find the very idea of intellectual curiosity or openness to be inherently offensive.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

stunt 7y ago

I wonder if any of decentralized internet projects are building something equivalent to Youtube or not!

Fjolsvith 7y ago
https://d.tube/ https://d.tube/ ?
DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
I read a while ago that there's a platform to access videos in some block chain, similar to youtube. Don't know what became of that though.
- stackola 7y ago
  Bitchute[1] works with WebTorrents, maybe that's what you mean. [1] https://www.bitchute.com/ https://www.bitchute.com/
cabalamat 7y ago
PeerTube https://joinpeertube.org/en/ https://joinpeertube.org/en/

neilv 7y ago

What I think would help is if we don't use a term like "extremism", which sounds like a term of sketchy censorship justification. What's "extreme"? Is two men wanting to marry each other extreme? Is advocating for freedom of abortion extreme? Is criticizing the ruling national party extreme? Is saying that climate change is influenced by human actions extreme? Is exposing instances of 'bad apple' abuses of power extreme? There are a lot of people who will answer yes to all of those, in the US alone. ("Of course we believe in freedom of speech, but certainly extremism should be censored!") I suggest not handing totalitarian censorship tools like the vague "extremism" to politicians and companies.

mschuster91 7y ago
> What I think would help is if we don't use a term like "extremism", which sounds like a term of sketchy censorship justification. Well, advocating for genocide on Muslims, spreading deadly propaganda such as antivaxx or "great replacement" or such certainly qualifies as "extremism".
Angostura 7y ago
Your preferred term is? Or are you suggesting that no content should be removed, because of the difficulty of defining the word?
- neilv 7y ago
  The US already has laws and other mechanisms for handling calls for violence, etc. For problems of manipulation, I suggest the solution is not a politician or company getting to choose who gets to manipulate, but rather, becoming more resilient against manipulation.
  - krapp 7y ago
    Ok, but your earlier comment was that we shouldn't even use the term "extremism," so what term would you prefer that couldn't be abused in the same way?

brokenkebab 7y ago

I do not sympathize with Google, but Boingboing looks ridiculous here. Its contributors have been advocating for modern pro-censorship movement, which pushes for filtering of content because of a ever growing list of allegedly offensive things, and signs. But wait a minute, they aren't happy with the results. What could go wrong. Now, as AI doesn't seem to cope with their demands, what will they want as a solution? Politically correct humans reviewing every video?

pdkl95 7y ago
> what will they want as a solution? The same thing we use when enforcing the rules of any infrastructure: publicly accountable and transparent due process. These problems will continue until big tech implements a proper rule of law[1]. They will continue[2] to be responsible for these difficult decisions as long as their platforms idea of justice is the rule of man[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law [2] https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024060/Still-Logged-In-What-AR https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024060/Still-Logged-In-What-A... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_man
- brokenkebab 7y ago
  Not sure I clearly see your position. If platforms should abstain from censorship unless proper legal process forces them to do so is what you mean - I would not argue. But it's not the point of my comment. Pro-cesorship movement never advocated for proper due process, they want quick, peferably automatical "deplatforming".
  - pdkl95 7y ago
    > proper legal process forces them to do so That's not what I'm talking about. The platforms need to create a new form of "legal process" where these issues are defined and adjudicated in an open process. Google et al are de facto a new layer of government, and they need to act like it. Currently, they are trying to act like a "(mostly) benevolent dictatorship" and finding out that the hard way that you can't actually please everyone. The proper way to handle calls for censorship/banning/etc is to tell them to take their grievances to the formalized judicial process and/or argue for changing that process in the formalized, open "legislature". For a much better explanation, I highly recommend watching Raph Koster's talk (my previous [2]). Even though it was at GDC and initially talks about VR and MMOs, the talk is not actually about games; it's about the ethical and social responsibilities of creating social spaces, and the may ways we've tried to solve their problems in the past.

mkettn 7y ago

If Youtube blocks their content, they can move to another video hosting site or start their own. No big deal nowadays.

DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
Not for the things described in the article, no. If you really just want to document things, you can host videos by yourself and just offer them for download. What makes youtube important isn't that they host your videos, but that they get people to watch them.

qrbLPHiKpiux 7y ago

There is a bigger problem - the reliance on someone else (YouTube, et al). When the masses rely on one person, then that one person changes his mind, you get what you get. YouTube, really, is just someone else’s computer. He doesn’t like how it’s being used, he fixes that. I’m not surprised here. There has to be a shift to self-reliance with this sort of thing.

DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago

Never heared of boingboing.net, but after reading > Steven Crowder's hate channel I don't think it's a very trustworthy source of information.

bencoder 7y ago
> Never heared of boingboing.net That's a genuine surprise! You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boing_Boing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boing_Boing > > Steven Crowder's hate channel I don't see this phrase in the article, perhaps it was removed. But, regardless, it seems quite apt in this context: https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1134264395717103617 https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1134264395717103617 > I don't think it's a very trustworthy source of information Use of a single, seemingly accurate, phrase seems like an odd reason to distrust a source
- DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
  > I don't see this phrase in the article It was in another article, which is directly linked in this one. > But, regardless, it seems quite apt in this context No it's not. He's just being a conservative asshole. > Use of a single, seemingly accurate, phrase seems like an odd reason to distrust a source It's not just the single phrase, but what you can extrapolate from it. Calling someone a hate channel is a pretty serious deal these days, and just throwing such an accusation around like that shows that at the very least whoever wrote that article doesn't in the slightest bit intend to show the complete picture. And no, I won't trust a source that I caught once telling only half the story on things where I wouldn't even know.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

hackerbabz 7y ago

Why does anyone think this needs to be an all or nothing approach? First step: remove the literal nazis. Nazis are bad and anyone who says otherwise is bad. Anyone who screams, “censorship!” About removing nazis is defending nazis. Second step: Evaluate what worked and what didn’t work about removing nazis. Correct mistakes. Third step: Pick the next most evil topic after nazis and repeat.

DarkWiiPlayer 7y ago
You got that wrong mate. Third step: Broaden the definition of nazi and repeat.
dalbasal 7y ago
I disagree. If you had your own website where choices of this kind need to be made.. sure, you can go ahead and make determinations based on principle. Your own definitions and evaluations of Nazism, evil, eviler and such will shine through, especially the priority list. Your own values will shine through the "what worked?" Step. Overall though, it would be totally fine. You are a person (presumably a decent one) and your principled choices are a great way to govern your website. YouTube is a major part of global media, a major subsidiary of Google/alphabet and a major channel through which democratic politics, speech and social life is conducted around the world. YouTube makes more mayors, parliamentarians an public intellectuals than they likely even bother to know about. It's an institution, in every sense. Ways of doing things that are perfectly workable for a person do not translate to institutional scale.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Grue3 7y ago
Fourth step: when they came for me there was no one left to speak up.
- hackerbabz 7y ago
  No. They came for the nazis. There is no slope from nazis to good people.

bronzeage 7y ago

censorship doesn't work and will never work. if you cut someone's tongue you only prove you're afraid of what he has to say. the best solution is to fight them back by showing them the opposite ideas. don't censor Nazis, put as advertisements and suggestions to positive content highlighting why they are wrong.

raxxorrax 7y ago
The allegedly worst site of actual national socialists had some badly drawn anime comics with very questionable messages and a minuscule user base. They were at the lowest bottom of the barrel for years. Then censorship ambitions flared up and look where we are now... Not that rational arguments seem to work in this discussion...
- eesmith 7y ago
  "Nazis" in these sorts of discussions is broadly meant to include 'actual national socialists', neo-nazis, white nationalists and white supremacists, and their sympathizers, stooges, and fellow travelers. This makes it a form of metonymy. Since the broader term includes more materials than "badly drawn anime comics", it appears you do not understand what most people usually mean by "Nazis". (To confirm my suspicion, I see at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19729764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19729764 that you used the phrase "national socialists knew very well", suggesting that you consider it as a term for people in the past, and not those in the present. How then did any of them have web sites, and were interested in anime?) By the way, many people who, seemingly hyper-pedantically narrow the use of "Nazi" for "actual national socialists" or (seen elsewhere) "members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party" are often deliberately derailing the topic. My advice is to not follow practices which might mistakenly get you labeled as a Nazi sympathizer. In any case, the HN guideline is to assume the "strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize". "Actual national socialists" is a much weaker and not really justifiable interpretation.
  - 0815test 7y ago
    Well, if we're going to do that, I think this extended "Nazi" label should also include militant Islamic anti-Semitism, as from ISIL, Hezballah, Hamas and the like. Since there is a fairly clear line of descent from the early-20th-c. anti-Semitism that Hitler drew onto, to present-day Islamic fundamentalism and extremism.

bartimus 7y ago

When running ads, Youtube allows you to target certain audiences. Perhaps they should just allow people to target (or block) certain content creators in a similar manner. Choose target video controversial threshold: 0 =O===== 100

Fjolsvith 7y ago
Who gets to rank the videos?
- bartimus 7y ago
  I suppose you could look at the number of views / comments / likes / dislikes ratios to determine a level of controversy. Youtube viewers are already grouped into various audiences. So their behavior towards certain video's tells something about the video.

YayamiOmate 7y ago

Regardless of platform and motivation, there is a more general issue. There is no fine well defined line between public documentation and promotion. Raising awarness is a form of promotion. Even if material is ultimately objective. There is no going around it, so it's always going to be subjective and leave someone unhappy, either for material being present or not present.

tempodox 7y ago

When we had nation states, we had free speech. Now we have companies and surveillance capitalism and we're back in the dark ages. Centuries of civic progress, payed for with blood, sold for the consumption of crappy content and evaporated in just two decades. Looks like Enlightenment has failed after all.