6 ms·

Then what? Allowing false information to fester is wrong, censorship is wrong. The way forward is to ban recommendation algorithms and go back to personal (as i

by jiofih 6y ago

Then what? Allowing false information to fester is wrong, censorship is wrong. The way forward is to ban recommendation algorithms and go back to personal (as in, from other humans you know) recommendation systems.

worker767424 6y ago
People want Youtube to be free and open...and remove things that aren't true. They want Facebook to open its social graph so other social networks can compete...and take privacy seriously so there isn't another Cambridge Analytica.
InitialLastName 6y ago
But then you take away social networks' god-given right to manipulate their users into doom-scrolling through more of their customers' ads!
walleeee 6y ago
I'm inclined to agree, but that is not the direction things seem to be headed. Dorsey called for increasingly personalized algorithms before congress a few weeks ago, while Zuckerberg basically implied FB would continue to acquiesce to congressional requests for censorship.
vorpalhex 6y ago
The algorithm here really is the perpetrator. The insane things I've had recommended to me by Youtube after watching rather boring philosophy videos or a bit of history is amazing. One of their recommendations was literally full on nutter ranting at a camera - and it came up on a video of a guy who builds and tests medieval longbows! I much prefer recommendations from people.
- abacadaba 6y ago
  Sort of a paradox personally. I think the algorithm has gotten better, not perfect, about recommending me less batshit insane videos. And I appreciate it. But things like the Hunter censorship absolutely cross a line and are enraging. Banning (even loosely defined) hate speech is not the same thing as being the arbiter of truth.
roenxi 6y ago
> Allowing false information to fester is wrong... That sounds good, but it is not true. If the CEO of YouTube was a committed Hindi the public would demand that he overlook Buddhist/Muslim/Christian/Atheist content on his platform. Tolerance of people we truly believe to be wrong is a key value that needs to be preserved. The sort of people who talk about "false information" in their policies tend to be running more authoritarian style countries - they don't actually know what is true and false, but they do know what they want to hear to promote stasis in leadership.
- enkid 6y ago
  What about people who earnestly believe that genocide is justifiable? What should YouTube do with that content? Or people advocating Euthanasia of mentally handicapped individual? I'm not saying I know a good line, but there clearly is one.
  - 7786655 6y ago
    They should leave it up, obviously. I mean they have the right to take it down, but if I were running YouTube I wouldn't.
tschellenbach 6y ago
This content actually does really well on whatsapp, signal and telegram.
tootie 6y ago
I definitely see how YT content policy is a fraught subject but it's unbelievably naïve to say it's risking the radicalization of a group of people giving life to a 17-state effort to nullify the popular vote in the artificially packed Supreme Court. I'm willing to err on the side of not placating a faction of society that are already sold on fascism as our best path forward.
jb775 6y ago
> Allowing false information to fester is wrong So what happens when "false" information "conspiracy theories" turn out to be true? How should it be handled when people in the position to censor information choose to do so in bad faith? (e.g. they lied about it being fake, or they weren't sure it was fake but they chose to censor bc it aligned with their political beliefs) And what if the censorship impacts were time sensitive? (e.g. they negligently censored sensitive election-related information immediately before an election, and then decided to report it as legitimate news shortly after the election - after the censorship goal was accomplished) "Oops we made a mistake" is not even close to an acceptable response. I say we treat free speech more like civil rights, harsh penalties and all. From the article: Hunter Biden was announcing that his “tax affairs” were under investigation....That news was denounced as Russian disinformation by virtually everyone in “reputable” media, who often dismissed the story with an aristocratic snort....That tale was not Russian disinformation, however, and Biden’s announcement this week strongly suggests Twitter and Facebook suppressed a real story of legitimate public interest just before a presidential election.

by jiofih 6y ago

worker767424 6y ago

People want Youtube to be free and open...and remove things that aren't true. They want Facebook to open its social graph so other social networks can compete...and take privacy seriously so there isn't another Cambridge Analytica.

InitialLastName 6y ago

But then you take away social networks' god-given right to manipulate their users into doom-scrolling through more of their customers' ads!

walleeee 6y ago

I'm inclined to agree, but that is not the direction things seem to be headed. Dorsey called for increasingly personalized algorithms before congress a few weeks ago, while Zuckerberg basically implied FB would continue to acquiesce to congressional requests for censorship.

vorpalhex 6y ago

The algorithm here really is the perpetrator. The insane things I've had recommended to me by Youtube after watching rather boring philosophy videos or a bit of history is amazing. One of their recommendations was literally full on nutter ranting at a camera - and it came up on a video of a guy who builds and tests medieval longbows! I much prefer recommendations from people.

abacadaba 6y ago
Sort of a paradox personally. I think the algorithm has gotten better, not perfect, about recommending me less batshit insane videos. And I appreciate it. But things like the Hunter censorship absolutely cross a line and are enraging. Banning (even loosely defined) hate speech is not the same thing as being the arbiter of truth.

roenxi 6y ago

> Allowing false information to fester is wrong... That sounds good, but it is not true. If the CEO of YouTube was a committed Hindi the public would demand that he overlook Buddhist/Muslim/Christian/Atheist content on his platform. Tolerance of people we truly believe to be wrong is a key value that needs to be preserved. The sort of people who talk about "false information" in their policies tend to be running more authoritarian style countries - they don't actually know what is true and false, but they do know what they want to hear to promote stasis in leadership.

enkid 6y ago
What about people who earnestly believe that genocide is justifiable? What should YouTube do with that content? Or people advocating Euthanasia of mentally handicapped individual? I'm not saying I know a good line, but there clearly is one.
- 7786655 6y ago
  They should leave it up, obviously. I mean they have the right to take it down, but if I were running YouTube I wouldn't.

tschellenbach 6y ago

This content actually does really well on whatsapp, signal and telegram.

tootie 6y ago

I definitely see how YT content policy is a fraught subject but it's unbelievably naïve to say it's risking the radicalization of a group of people giving life to a 17-state effort to nullify the popular vote in the artificially packed Supreme Court. I'm willing to err on the side of not placating a faction of society that are already sold on fascism as our best path forward.

jb775 6y ago

> Allowing false information to fester is wrong So what happens when "false" information "conspiracy theories" turn out to be true? How should it be handled when people in the position to censor information choose to do so in bad faith? (e.g. they lied about it being fake, or they weren't sure it was fake but they chose to censor bc it aligned with their political beliefs) And what if the censorship impacts were time sensitive? (e.g. they negligently censored sensitive election-related information immediately before an election, and then decided to report it as legitimate news shortly after the election - after the censorship goal was accomplished) "Oops we made a mistake" is not even close to an acceptable response. I say we treat free speech more like civil rights, harsh penalties and all. From the article: Hunter Biden was announcing that his “tax affairs” were under investigation....That news was denounced as Russian disinformation by virtually everyone in “reputable” media, who often dismissed the story with an aristocratic snort....That tale was not Russian disinformation, however, and Biden’s announcement this week strongly suggests Twitter and Facebook suppressed a real story of legitimate public interest just before a presidential election.