8 ms·

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki addresses hate speech controversy

27 points by lawrenceyan 7y ago

matz1 7y ago
Hate speech is paradox. In the end its boil down to whoever strong enough to force other to comply.
jstewartmobile 7y ago
TLDR: Sorry gay Latinos, but the Canadian kid is making us money. We have to enforce our "policies consistently" here.
- dang 7y ago
  This comment breaks the site guidelines, which ask: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Please don't turn the dial all the way to ideological flamewar 11, especially when a thread hasn't even started yet. The only outcome to that is yet another tedious feud. Those can readily be had elsewhere, and we're trying to have a site for something else here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - Zigurd 7y ago
    When Naziism comes again, it will come online. You cannot hide from that.
  - busterarm 7y ago
    > we're trying to have a site for something else here. I think with the state of things and the current culture war going on, then for the sake of the board this topic needs to be thrown down the hole. Hence my flag. The very first posts on this thread and first replies are like battle lines drawn.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      At the same time, a board for discussing tech has some responsibility to ensure that big issues facing tech can be discussed. It's a problem if whoever's making the next Youtube lurks here and thinks "huh, content moderation must not be a big issue, nobody in the industry seems to talk about it".
      - busterarm 7y ago
        If we can't discuss it civilly, should it be discussed at all? I think if we want this kind of discussion on the board, the topic should be clearly marked as potentially hostile and either have comment voting disabled entirely or change the policy so that rule violations in flagged topics come with strict and lengthy timeout periods. And I say that as someone who has caught dang's ire a few times, as I'm sure he can confirm. :)
        reitanqild 7y ago
        > If we can't discuss it civilly, should it be discussed at all? I think we should. And as you propose, sharper reactions towards those who still cannot behave. That and a threshold (example at least 3 months old, at least 15 comments and the account must have good standing) for accounts that wish to participate and the moderators might have a chance.
  - jstewartmobile 7y ago
    I have no pros or cons for Crowder, and this was not "ideological flamewar 11". This was looking at how the big G has treated everyone from their customers down to their employees, and making a reasonable inference. Do you know how many people fight an endless battle to keep their copyrighted stuff off of youtube? How many old ladies get tech support scammed by the #1 ad on a google search? How many business get hit up by an "adwords consultant" who sells them a bunch of keywords they already place organically for? How many millions of dollars worth of web-page re-shuffling is done to appease the algorithmic gods? Why don't you "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation" of what I say for once dang?
vecplane 7y ago
Crowder is hilarious, and I love seeing conservative youtubers continue to fight the good fight.
- radicalriddler 7y ago
  The good fight of hate speech against minorities? Or The good fight of acting in bad faith of dogwhistling and spreading misinformation? Elaborate how he's "fighting the good fight"
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
plx7437 7y ago
Social platforms need to be held legally liable for the content they host. Unless you’re a “dumb pipe” doing one-to-one comms (email services could get an exemption for spam filters), you’re a publisher. Hire moderators and the editors. If that doesn’t scale, then you need to cut back on the user-created content you host. The content can be shared in other ways via the internet, but networks inside the network shouldn’t get a free ride anymore.
- busterarm 7y ago
  The problem is that content and the free and easy means of posting it are the whole lifeblood of these social platforms. They have no business model without it. I still agree with you though. Maybe for the good of everyone these things need to go.
- null0pointer 7y ago
  So how can any new social media platforms or startups ever be able to support all that additional staff/infrastructure? I hold the complete opposite view. The individual that uploaded the content should be held solely responsible for the publishing of that content. Should the platform receives a request for removal then by all means the onus would fall to them to make that decision. If the content is illegal then the platform should aid law enforcement with whatever information they have on the uploader. I don't believe it makes any sense to pre-filter content unless you're deliberately trying to create an opinionated platform (which btw is fine if that's what you want to do, but it shouldn't be a legal requirement).
  - plx7437 7y ago
    If they can’t exercise effective editorial control, they shouldn’t be in that business. Same as a newspaper that publishes harmful or libellous content. Will it kill off Facebook and Twitter in their current forms? Probably...but that’s a feature, not a bug.
    - null0pointer 7y ago
      I am saying they should be allowed to exercise _zero_ editorial control. Unless they specifically want to, like a newspaper. If you want to create liberal-Facebook or conservative-Facebook then go right ahead. At the moment Facebook is intended to be a neutral platform exercising as little editorial control as possible (though whether that is the reality is up for debate). And btw, I couldn't care less for Facebook or Twitter, I don't use either personally.
Ronnie_Dipple 7y ago
If Google aka YouTube doesn't allow Conservatives to voice their opinions on the platform then there's the very real possibility that the president himself may get involved. As we all know Google is on shaky ground atm.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
dvt 7y ago
I'm not some crazy tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, but it's certainly telling that Wojcicki spoke at Recode (which is owned by Vox) but didn't give Crowder the same courtesy. This just screams conflict of interest (and will only give Crowder more ammunition), but whatever. Second, it's clear that YouTube, much like Google, et al. are still attempting to keep their classification as a murky "grey area" where they aren't really platforms, but they aren't really publishers, so they can make tons of money, but not seriously answer to the public either. Classic corporatism. And until our representatives in DC really wake up, I can't really fault them for it. Our lawmakers barely understand how adding a friend on Facebook works, and I'm sure Silicon Valley enjoys printing money on the back of this ignorance. Third, it's incredibly clear that there's an ideologically-liberal slant in tech. I've met both Muslims as well as Christians that were simply afraid of the status quo to speak out even though some of these policies made them uncomfortable. I really wish we could be more honest about this. As a staunch Millian[1], I contend that diversity of thought is a good thing. Finally, (imo) anyone who seriously thinks Crowder should've been censored/deplatformed is just being unfair. He's pretty offensive, but doesn't really go much further than Colbert, John Oliver, etc. [1] https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html
- untog 7y ago
  > He's pretty offensive, but doesn't really go much further than Colbert, John Oliver, etc. I'm sorry, what? > Last week, Maza called out the abuse in a supercut of comments Crowder has made on his popular YouTube channel in the last two years. They include: “lispy sprite,” “little queer,” “Mr. Gay Vox,” “Mr. Lispy queer from Vox,” “an angry little queer,” “gay Mexican,” and “gay Latino from Vox.” https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xwn54q/google-says-right-wing-youtube-star-can-continue-his-racist-and-homophobic-abuse https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xwn54q/google-says-right... It's been a while since I watched John Oliver or Colbert, I guess I'm missing some information that would make the comparison even slightly accurate?
  - mikeEnoch 7y ago
    Carlos Maza’s twitter and ig handle is “gaywonk”. He also speaks with a lisp. He also makes it a point to always point out that he’s “queer” and “latino”. Calling him those things is not an insult. This is what his whole identity and claim to fame is.
latch 7y ago
Canada has robust, tried and tested hate speech laws. They've also previously said they would start regulating platforms unless they started to "self regulate." It's time.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I know Canada's hate speech laws are pretty broad, but I'm not sure they make it a crime to call people nasty names.
  - latch 7y ago
    I don't know either. You might be right. (Does Crowder cross that line between harassing an individual and targeting groups?) Doesn't change that Canada should be applying its laws to these platforms.
  - lostgame 7y ago
    It really depends. If someone just walked up to the street here in Toronto where I live, and, for instance, with no provocation, called me a faggot for holding hands with my girlfriend, that, in my opinion, is hate speech, and that individual certainly could face consequences. If you, say, make a joke about someone being an 'edgefag', 4-chan style, I think that's fine, in context, and somethimg I did myself, years ago. In Law, there's the 'Word' of the law and the 'Spirit', or Intention, of the Law, and ultimately, in a court of law, it's the intention, specifically with hate speech, that really determines if it's criminal in nature or not. Full disclosure: I'm lesbian, polyamourous, and I am extremely happy that my partners and I can feel safe walking around downtown holding hands without people acting this way.
- lostgame 7y ago
  My own Father may end up in court for hate speech against me (Bill C13) for being transgender ('you're a disgrace to God', 'you're a disappointment to myself and the family,' the usual ignorant hate speech about half of trans people get, especially from 'Christians' like my Father who use God to defend their bigotry - I am a Christian myself, by the way...I have nothing wrong with Christians, I have a problem with ignorant bigots like my Father or Westboro Baptists...). Our laws are very fair. I'd love to see him face serious consequences for the psychological damage his awful words have caused me. I'm glad to live here. So, so very many trans people have no point of recourse for the nights we spend crying ourselves to sleep from the hate we get, especially from those who claim to 'love us'. EDIT: Downvotes? Really? If you're downvoting this, consider yourself priviliged enough to not have to go through this. Guessing it's mostly fathers who would be horrified to see their kid take them to court?
cwperkins 7y ago
I'm ok with sites working on de-radicalization by making certain content more difficult to find, but I think we need transparency in all of this. I'm weary of a giant corporation like Google deciding what is "correct" discourse. The analog I like to bring up is the College Board devising an "adversity" score along with your SAT score. I prefer the College Board come up with a transparent methodology instead of each institution, like Harvard, having an opaque one of their own. In the future I want to see a world where your zip code doesn't determine your outcome, but some changes like this happen at a glacial pace. In a similar light I also want to see discourse become more civil over time with the rebuilding of the middle class.
- kjeetgill 7y ago
  While I agree I think transparency is a hard problem. Just looking at the cat and mouse game that Google has been involved in with its search algorithms and SEO. And that has maybe 20% of the implications towards freedom of speech, politics, conspiracy, and controversy. Credit scores have a similar rock, paper, scissors game between objectivity, transparency, and oversight. I think some amount of opacity in the algorithm is going to be required but maybe a published report of actions taken at a 6-12 month lag? That might give opportunity for critical press and course correction in a broader sense without nitpicking every call. I find it hard to hold Google and Facebook so accountable for addressing these problems personally when we struggle to hold our elected officials accountable for addressing them.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
joshdover 7y ago
I'm normally one to see both sides in a situation like this, but this one struck me differently. YouTube appears scared of extremists. They claim to fear a anti-conservative bias. If by policing blatant bigotry and hate makes you anti-conservative, there may be an issue with conservatism, not your policy. If mainstream conservatives have gotten to the point where they'd defend blatant bigotry, disrespect, and just down right hateful behavior, and we yield to them, we need a reality check. This type of behavior does not make our society any better, promote a discussion, or spread any kind of well-being. The same behavior would not be tolerated in many of the community spaces we share: schools, churches, theaters, restaurants. Why do we allow such things online? Why do we allow women to be harassed endlessly with death rape threats on Twitter but not in person? I do not understand. To mistake poor cyber behavior as less important and less influential on our culture may be the gravest mistake we keep making. There's a good faith, honest, and respectful way to have differing opinions and discuss important topics. But this isn't it, and it's not ambiguous. If we want a world where goodness prevails, we have to stop being scared and start making choices.
- rangerpolitic 7y ago
  This is a non-starter until hate is unambiguously defined.
  - ahelwer 7y ago
    Unambiguous definitions do not exist outside of mathematics. Furthermore, modern fascist communication strategies rely on existing within this ambiguity.
    - rangerpolitic 7y ago
      What constitutes hate? Should people be permitted to use the word "marijuana" on YouTube? See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igtLqhX4BCA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igtLqhX4BCA Should people be permitted to use the "okay" gesture in videos? See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwJgr-4j14E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwJgr-4j14E Should people be permitted to use a swastika in videos? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Contemporary_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Contemporary_use It seems the fascists are already taking advantage of the ambiguity.
whatamidoingyo 7y ago
>despite Crowder’s consistent use of racist and homophobic slurs. Articles keep saying this. Calling someone a Mexican isn't "racist". The homophobic "slurs" are used by Carlos himself, though the mockery was a little strong. However, that mockery is nothing compared to the mockery performed by left-wing commentators. Let's not forget that Louder with Crowder is a comedy show. My god, can you imagine if George Carlin was alive? He'd be burried with hate from the media. Also, Carlos Maza has called for violence against people. He deserved getting doxxed any everything else, IMO. Disclaimer: I'm neither left nor right. Edit: LOL, little Googlers are going to downvote me to hell. Sorry for speaking the truth. Just hide my comment instead of engaging it.
- adventist 7y ago
  He calls himself "gaywonk" I don't think calling him that is homophobic. I don't really know where that talking point comes from either.
  - whatamidoingyo 7y ago
    It isn't, and anyone with a brain will see that.
  - pdkl95 7y ago
    "gaywonk" isn't why Crowder is homophobic, and at worst it's only a minor example of Crowder's promotion of hate speech. Here's several clips of Crowder clearly acting homophobic, acting in general like an asshole, and probably violating YouTube's TOS that forbids posting content that "is deliberately posted in order to humiliate someone". Following that, there are clips of Crowder using common homophobic slurs that had the direct result of inciting some of his fans to dox Maza and denial-of-sevice/spam his phone number (video t=115). This kind of incitement and promotion of a culture of hate is exactly what hate-speech laws are trying to reduce. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL997BhfP0M&t=163 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL997BhfP0M&t=163
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
alexryan 7y ago
Conservatives tend to "aversion" as their coping mechanism (at its extreme, this might be labelled "hate") whereas liberals tend towards "connection" as their coping mechanism (at its extreme this might be labelled "greed"). Interestingly in buddhism "greed, hate and delusion" are considered to be the 3 poisons. i.e. clinging to either greed or hate leads to delusion. Isn't the fact that "hate speech" is a "thing" whereas "greed speech" is not evidence of a liberal bias?
- RomanBob 7y ago
  I think you are stretching that greed counts as a coping mechanism via 'connection' in order to fit with the buddhist teaching.
jstewartmobile 7y ago
Even though this has already been flagged, I'm going to make a second attempt at a "substantive" comment: The high road would be either A) free-speech-absolutism of publish anything that can legally be published, and take the heat for it, or B) run a family-channel-style platform of heavily curated content, and take full responsibility for all of it. Since this is Google, and they can never have enough money, they take the weasel route of C) rake in that sweet sweet momo-chan and playdoh-princess cash until the media catches-on, then pivot to the next batch of lucrative slime.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Most companies would probably do the same given the same circumstances. It's disappointing but predictable.

27 points by lawrenceyan 7y ago

matz1 7y ago

Hate speech is paradox. In the end its boil down to whoever strong enough to force other to comply.

jstewartmobile 7y ago

TLDR: Sorry gay Latinos, but the Canadian kid is making us money. We have to enforce our "policies consistently" here.

dang 7y ago
This comment breaks the site guidelines, which ask: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Please don't turn the dial all the way to ideological flamewar 11, especially when a thread hasn't even started yet. The only outcome to that is yet another tedious feud. Those can readily be had elsewhere, and we're trying to have a site for something else here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Zigurd 7y ago
  When Naziism comes again, it will come online. You cannot hide from that.
- busterarm 7y ago
  > we're trying to have a site for something else here. I think with the state of things and the current culture war going on, then for the sake of the board this topic needs to be thrown down the hole. Hence my flag. The very first posts on this thread and first replies are like battle lines drawn.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    At the same time, a board for discussing tech has some responsibility to ensure that big issues facing tech can be discussed. It's a problem if whoever's making the next Youtube lurks here and thinks "huh, content moderation must not be a big issue, nobody in the industry seems to talk about it".
    - busterarm 7y ago
      If we can't discuss it civilly, should it be discussed at all? I think if we want this kind of discussion on the board, the topic should be clearly marked as potentially hostile and either have comment voting disabled entirely or change the policy so that rule violations in flagged topics come with strict and lengthy timeout periods. And I say that as someone who has caught dang's ire a few times, as I'm sure he can confirm. :)
      - reitanqild 7y ago
        > If we can't discuss it civilly, should it be discussed at all? I think we should. And as you propose, sharper reactions towards those who still cannot behave. That and a threshold (example at least 3 months old, at least 15 comments and the account must have good standing) for accounts that wish to participate and the moderators might have a chance.
- jstewartmobile 7y ago
  I have no pros or cons for Crowder, and this was not "ideological flamewar 11". This was looking at how the big G has treated everyone from their customers down to their employees, and making a reasonable inference. Do you know how many people fight an endless battle to keep their copyrighted stuff off of youtube? How many old ladies get tech support scammed by the #1 ad on a google search? How many business get hit up by an "adwords consultant" who sells them a bunch of keywords they already place organically for? How many millions of dollars worth of web-page re-shuffling is done to appease the algorithmic gods? Why don't you "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation" of what I say for once dang?

vecplane 7y ago

Crowder is hilarious, and I love seeing conservative youtubers continue to fight the good fight.

radicalriddler 7y ago
The good fight of hate speech against minorities? Or The good fight of acting in bad faith of dogwhistling and spreading misinformation? Elaborate how he's "fighting the good fight"
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 7y ago
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

plx7437 7y ago

Social platforms need to be held legally liable for the content they host. Unless you’re a “dumb pipe” doing one-to-one comms (email services could get an exemption for spam filters), you’re a publisher. Hire moderators and the editors. If that doesn’t scale, then you need to cut back on the user-created content you host. The content can be shared in other ways via the internet, but networks inside the network shouldn’t get a free ride anymore.

busterarm 7y ago
The problem is that content and the free and easy means of posting it are the whole lifeblood of these social platforms. They have no business model without it. I still agree with you though. Maybe for the good of everyone these things need to go.
null0pointer 7y ago
So how can any new social media platforms or startups ever be able to support all that additional staff/infrastructure? I hold the complete opposite view. The individual that uploaded the content should be held solely responsible for the publishing of that content. Should the platform receives a request for removal then by all means the onus would fall to them to make that decision. If the content is illegal then the platform should aid law enforcement with whatever information they have on the uploader. I don't believe it makes any sense to pre-filter content unless you're deliberately trying to create an opinionated platform (which btw is fine if that's what you want to do, but it shouldn't be a legal requirement).
- plx7437 7y ago
  If they can’t exercise effective editorial control, they shouldn’t be in that business. Same as a newspaper that publishes harmful or libellous content. Will it kill off Facebook and Twitter in their current forms? Probably...but that’s a feature, not a bug.
  - null0pointer 7y ago
    I am saying they should be allowed to exercise _zero_ editorial control. Unless they specifically want to, like a newspaper. If you want to create liberal-Facebook or conservative-Facebook then go right ahead. At the moment Facebook is intended to be a neutral platform exercising as little editorial control as possible (though whether that is the reality is up for debate). And btw, I couldn't care less for Facebook or Twitter, I don't use either personally.

Ronnie_Dipple 7y ago

If Google aka YouTube doesn't allow Conservatives to voice their opinions on the platform then there's the very real possibility that the president himself may get involved. As we all know Google is on shaky ground atm.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

dvt 7y ago

I'm not some crazy tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, but it's certainly telling that Wojcicki spoke at Recode (which is owned by Vox) but didn't give Crowder the same courtesy. This just screams conflict of interest (and will only give Crowder more ammunition), but whatever. Second, it's clear that YouTube, much like Google, et al. are still attempting to keep their classification as a murky "grey area" where they aren't really platforms, but they aren't really publishers, so they can make tons of money, but not seriously answer to the public either. Classic corporatism. And until our representatives in DC really wake up, I can't really fault them for it. Our lawmakers barely understand how adding a friend on Facebook works, and I'm sure Silicon Valley enjoys printing money on the back of this ignorance. Third, it's incredibly clear that there's an ideologically-liberal slant in tech. I've met both Muslims as well as Christians that were simply afraid of the status quo to speak out even though some of these policies made them uncomfortable. I really wish we could be more honest about this. As a staunch Millian[1], I contend that diversity of thought is a good thing. Finally, (imo) anyone who seriously thinks Crowder should've been censored/deplatformed is just being unfair. He's pretty offensive, but doesn't really go much further than Colbert, John Oliver, etc. [1] https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html

untog 7y ago
> He's pretty offensive, but doesn't really go much further than Colbert, John Oliver, etc. I'm sorry, what? > Last week, Maza called out the abuse in a supercut of comments Crowder has made on his popular YouTube channel in the last two years. They include: “lispy sprite,” “little queer,” “Mr. Gay Vox,” “Mr. Lispy queer from Vox,” “an angry little queer,” “gay Mexican,” and “gay Latino from Vox.” https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xwn54q/google-says-right-wing-youtube-star-can-continue-his-racist-and-homophobic-abuse https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xwn54q/google-says-right... It's been a while since I watched John Oliver or Colbert, I guess I'm missing some information that would make the comparison even slightly accurate?
- mikeEnoch 7y ago
  Carlos Maza’s twitter and ig handle is “gaywonk”. He also speaks with a lisp. He also makes it a point to always point out that he’s “queer” and “latino”. Calling him those things is not an insult. This is what his whole identity and claim to fame is.

latch 7y ago

Canada has robust, tried and tested hate speech laws. They've also previously said they would start regulating platforms unless they started to "self regulate." It's time.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
I know Canada's hate speech laws are pretty broad, but I'm not sure they make it a crime to call people nasty names.
- latch 7y ago
  I don't know either. You might be right. (Does Crowder cross that line between harassing an individual and targeting groups?) Doesn't change that Canada should be applying its laws to these platforms.
- lostgame 7y ago
  It really depends. If someone just walked up to the street here in Toronto where I live, and, for instance, with no provocation, called me a faggot for holding hands with my girlfriend, that, in my opinion, is hate speech, and that individual certainly could face consequences. If you, say, make a joke about someone being an 'edgefag', 4-chan style, I think that's fine, in context, and somethimg I did myself, years ago. In Law, there's the 'Word' of the law and the 'Spirit', or Intention, of the Law, and ultimately, in a court of law, it's the intention, specifically with hate speech, that really determines if it's criminal in nature or not. Full disclosure: I'm lesbian, polyamourous, and I am extremely happy that my partners and I can feel safe walking around downtown holding hands without people acting this way.
lostgame 7y ago
My own Father may end up in court for hate speech against me (Bill C13) for being transgender ('you're a disgrace to God', 'you're a disappointment to myself and the family,' the usual ignorant hate speech about half of trans people get, especially from 'Christians' like my Father who use God to defend their bigotry - I am a Christian myself, by the way...I have nothing wrong with Christians, I have a problem with ignorant bigots like my Father or Westboro Baptists...). Our laws are very fair. I'd love to see him face serious consequences for the psychological damage his awful words have caused me. I'm glad to live here. So, so very many trans people have no point of recourse for the nights we spend crying ourselves to sleep from the hate we get, especially from those who claim to 'love us'. EDIT: Downvotes? Really? If you're downvoting this, consider yourself priviliged enough to not have to go through this. Guessing it's mostly fathers who would be horrified to see their kid take them to court?

cwperkins 7y ago

I'm ok with sites working on de-radicalization by making certain content more difficult to find, but I think we need transparency in all of this. I'm weary of a giant corporation like Google deciding what is "correct" discourse. The analog I like to bring up is the College Board devising an "adversity" score along with your SAT score. I prefer the College Board come up with a transparent methodology instead of each institution, like Harvard, having an opaque one of their own. In the future I want to see a world where your zip code doesn't determine your outcome, but some changes like this happen at a glacial pace. In a similar light I also want to see discourse become more civil over time with the rebuilding of the middle class.

kjeetgill 7y ago
While I agree I think transparency is a hard problem. Just looking at the cat and mouse game that Google has been involved in with its search algorithms and SEO. And that has maybe 20% of the implications towards freedom of speech, politics, conspiracy, and controversy. Credit scores have a similar rock, paper, scissors game between objectivity, transparency, and oversight. I think some amount of opacity in the algorithm is going to be required but maybe a published report of actions taken at a 6-12 month lag? That might give opportunity for critical press and course correction in a broader sense without nitpicking every call. I find it hard to hold Google and Facebook so accountable for addressing these problems personally when we struggle to hold our elected officials accountable for addressing them.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

joshdover 7y ago

I'm normally one to see both sides in a situation like this, but this one struck me differently. YouTube appears scared of extremists. They claim to fear a anti-conservative bias. If by policing blatant bigotry and hate makes you anti-conservative, there may be an issue with conservatism, not your policy. If mainstream conservatives have gotten to the point where they'd defend blatant bigotry, disrespect, and just down right hateful behavior, and we yield to them, we need a reality check. This type of behavior does not make our society any better, promote a discussion, or spread any kind of well-being. The same behavior would not be tolerated in many of the community spaces we share: schools, churches, theaters, restaurants. Why do we allow such things online? Why do we allow women to be harassed endlessly with death rape threats on Twitter but not in person? I do not understand. To mistake poor cyber behavior as less important and less influential on our culture may be the gravest mistake we keep making. There's a good faith, honest, and respectful way to have differing opinions and discuss important topics. But this isn't it, and it's not ambiguous. If we want a world where goodness prevails, we have to stop being scared and start making choices.

rangerpolitic 7y ago
This is a non-starter until hate is unambiguously defined.
- ahelwer 7y ago
  Unambiguous definitions do not exist outside of mathematics. Furthermore, modern fascist communication strategies rely on existing within this ambiguity.
  - rangerpolitic 7y ago
    What constitutes hate? Should people be permitted to use the word "marijuana" on YouTube? See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igtLqhX4BCA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igtLqhX4BCA Should people be permitted to use the "okay" gesture in videos? See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwJgr-4j14E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwJgr-4j14E Should people be permitted to use a swastika in videos? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Contemporary_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Contemporary_use It seems the fascists are already taking advantage of the ambiguity.

whatamidoingyo 7y ago

>despite Crowder’s consistent use of racist and homophobic slurs. Articles keep saying this. Calling someone a Mexican isn't "racist". The homophobic "slurs" are used by Carlos himself, though the mockery was a little strong. However, that mockery is nothing compared to the mockery performed by left-wing commentators. Let's not forget that Louder with Crowder is a comedy show. My god, can you imagine if George Carlin was alive? He'd be burried with hate from the media. Also, Carlos Maza has called for violence against people. He deserved getting doxxed any everything else, IMO. Disclaimer: I'm neither left nor right. Edit: LOL, little Googlers are going to downvote me to hell. Sorry for speaking the truth. Just hide my comment instead of engaging it.

adventist 7y ago
He calls himself "gaywonk" I don't think calling him that is homophobic. I don't really know where that talking point comes from either.
- whatamidoingyo 7y ago
  It isn't, and anyone with a brain will see that.
- pdkl95 7y ago
  "gaywonk" isn't why Crowder is homophobic, and at worst it's only a minor example of Crowder's promotion of hate speech. Here's several clips of Crowder clearly acting homophobic, acting in general like an asshole, and probably violating YouTube's TOS that forbids posting content that "is deliberately posted in order to humiliate someone". Following that, there are clips of Crowder using common homophobic slurs that had the direct result of inciting some of his fans to dox Maza and denial-of-sevice/spam his phone number (video t=115). This kind of incitement and promotion of a culture of hate is exactly what hate-speech laws are trying to reduce. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL997BhfP0M&t=163 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL997BhfP0M&t=163

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

alexryan 7y ago

Conservatives tend to "aversion" as their coping mechanism (at its extreme, this might be labelled "hate") whereas liberals tend towards "connection" as their coping mechanism (at its extreme this might be labelled "greed"). Interestingly in buddhism "greed, hate and delusion" are considered to be the 3 poisons. i.e. clinging to either greed or hate leads to delusion. Isn't the fact that "hate speech" is a "thing" whereas "greed speech" is not evidence of a liberal bias?

RomanBob 7y ago
I think you are stretching that greed counts as a coping mechanism via 'connection' in order to fit with the buddhist teaching.

jstewartmobile 7y ago

Even though this has already been flagged, I'm going to make a second attempt at a "substantive" comment: The high road would be either A) free-speech-absolutism of publish anything that can legally be published, and take the heat for it, or B) run a family-channel-style platform of heavily curated content, and take full responsibility for all of it. Since this is Google, and they can never have enough money, they take the weasel route of C) rake in that sweet sweet momo-chan and playdoh-princess cash until the media catches-on, then pivot to the next batch of lucrative slime.

darkpuma 7y ago
They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Most companies would probably do the same given the same circumstances. It's disappointing but predictable.