4 ms·
The article suggests that government employees may be consulting with YouTube in these censorship decisions. And that consultation would seem to be prohibited
by leereeves 5y ago
The article suggests that government employees may be consulting with YouTube in these censorship decisions.
And that consultation would seem to be prohibited by the first amendment, just as police aren't allowed to consult with PIs to violate people's rights, even if the PIs volunteer to do so.
(In other words, it's the gov employees, not YouTube, who would be violating people's rights by doing this.)
- klyrs 5y agoIs YouTube doing that voluntarily, or is that consultation required by law?
- salawat 5y agoIt doesn't really matter given the quid pro quo that could be facilitated through such engagement. There are more ways of implementing incentive structures and control mechanisms than you can possibly imagine, which is exactly why people are right to be concerned.
- akomtu 5y agoIt's the 3rd option: YT follows off-the-record recommendations to avoid potential problems with authorities. There are written, but unofficial, per-country rules and there's a well defined process to squash dissent: ML models analyze videos and comments to find non-complaint users, numerous contractors look at the automated flags and write their summaries, corp employees, up to VP level, review the reports and cancel the non-complaint users.