An update on our commitment to fight terror content online(youtube.googleblog.com)
youtube.googleblog.com
An update on our commitment to fight terror content online
https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/08/an-update-on-our-commitment-to-fight.html
242 comments
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-propagand...
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-propagand...
> Kids should see all of those in school, to immunize them against such messages.
You'd have to go about that very carefully not to accidentally re-inforce a message that has already been planted and ending up making things worse rather than better.
You'd have to go about that very carefully not to accidentally re-inforce a message that has already been planted and ending up making things worse rather than better.
> Those groups have very specific agendas.
I'm not sure what that means; doesn't every group have an agenda? I think the implication is that these groups' agendas are no better than any other groups' agendas. I think that's clearly wrong; we can't take politically correct relativism and openness to a logical extreme - we must make distinctions between good and bad (though carefully reasoned ones). Though I agree we should be careful, and no group or agenda is perfect, the agendas of hate groups are not just as good as the ADL's, for example.
> They shouldn't be allowed to block articles which disagree with their agenda.
Is that the standard used by Google?
I'm not sure what that means; doesn't every group have an agenda? I think the implication is that these groups' agendas are no better than any other groups' agendas. I think that's clearly wrong; we can't take politically correct relativism and openness to a logical extreme - we must make distinctions between good and bad (though carefully reasoned ones). Though I agree we should be careful, and no group or agenda is perfect, the agendas of hate groups are not just as good as the ADL's, for example.
> They shouldn't be allowed to block articles which disagree with their agenda.
Is that the standard used by Google?
The ADL appears to be picked because they're a very powerful political lobby in Washington. This move is a fairly blatant attempt to curry political favor.
I wouldn't say that there's a moral equivalence between the ADL's agenda (promoting Israel) and, say, Amnesty's agenda (ending torture & political imprisonment).
Amnesty got hit by the latest "fake news" google update:
https://mronline.org/2017/07/28/new-google-algorithm-restric...
I wouldn't say that there's a moral equivalence between the ADL's agenda (promoting Israel) and, say, Amnesty's agenda (ending torture & political imprisonment).
Amnesty got hit by the latest "fake news" google update:
https://mronline.org/2017/07/28/new-google-algorithm-restric...
I had no idea that was happening. Thank you for making this important point.
The question isn't whether one group can be assumed better than the other (obviously, the ADL is less bad than ISIS). It's whether any group is "correct" enough to be trusted with controlling the spectrum of the conversation.
Beyond that basic observation, I can't speak to the other groups, but to me, the degree of anti-Arab bias that the ADL exhibits is really appalling, and I have no confidence whatsoever in their ability to fairly filter the news for the masses.
Beyond that basic observation, I can't speak to the other groups, but to me, the degree of anti-Arab bias that the ADL exhibits is really appalling, and I have no confidence whatsoever in their ability to fairly filter the news for the masses.
>Will "trusted flaggers" be allowed to make Dabiq inaccessable?
The answer is no. This post is about YouTube. Presumably a magazine won't be impacted. Also, new content is not being removed, but rather:
"If we find that these videos don’t violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes."
Which is ironically not dissimilar from your suggestion that hateful and ignorant views be taught in context to school children.
You comment reminds me of those news stories where the headline is a question. When you read the article, the answer is always, "No."
The answer is no. This post is about YouTube. Presumably a magazine won't be impacted. Also, new content is not being removed, but rather:
"If we find that these videos don’t violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes."
Which is ironically not dissimilar from your suggestion that hateful and ignorant views be taught in context to school children.
You comment reminds me of those news stories where the headline is a question. When you read the article, the answer is always, "No."
Right. The content won't be banned, it just won't be allowed to have any significant audience. Much like protests weren't banned - you can still protest, but 20 miles away from the venue, where there are no cameras or reporters.
It's already pretty difficult for magazines and pdf files to gain a significant audience on YouTube.
> See what the other side wants.
It's a shame (but understandable) that we're only doing that once they start raping, torturing and killing...
It's a shame (but understandable) that we're only doing that once they start raping, torturing and killing...
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.
It's not an abstract issue, it actually happens.
To be blunt, many of those people were either mentally unstable or mentally deficient before they started reading ISIS...
Social psychiatric help and better public education are also necessary tools in this battle.
Social psychiatric help and better public education are also necessary tools in this battle.
I want to believe that, but I'm not sure that's as commonly the case as we'd imagine. There are plenty of stories of regular people, raised in liberal western democracies, being taken in by the isis propaganda.
"Liberal western democracy" says little about education or psychiatric health funding. Look at the US, laughable and utterly embarrassing education standards and virtually non-existent social mental health treatment.
Just last night I was watching a 1990s music video on YT of a Serbian soldier actually promoting the genocide against the Muslim Bosniaks. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq_J2C6Hrz0 . The lyrics actually say "let's bomb all the mosques". As far as I can tell this video was filmed before the Srebrenica massacre. So we've got a video promoting genocide (which I regard as worse than terrorism) of which no Google employee has anything to say.
Did you flag it?
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?
Should we ban it?
Funny, the event that triggered the most brutal war in European history was actually the unbanning of the Bible.
Could you please elaborate? I did not get the reference.
I think it refers to the 30 years war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
Yep!
Can you elaborate on "the unbanning of the Bible"? Thank you.
Under the Catholic Church the Bible was number one on the list of banned books ('The Index') and it was only written in Latin (vernacular translations were a capital offence) and the only people allowed to interpret it were the clergy. One of the core elements of the Reformation was the translation into vernacular of the Bible and the propagation of the idea that anyone could interpret it. The explosion of interpretations and beliefs during that period is often cited as one of the driving forces behind the viciousness of the wars of religions. (Apologies for not having citations on hand, this was mostly pulled from memory)
The bible is written in Hebrew and Greek. Latin was the only officially accepted translation.
Bibles don't kill people. People kill people.
[deleted]
People in Manchester died more recently.
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-...
> 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).
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).
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-mus.... As an apostate I think this guy is a hero.
EDIT: It's worth watching the guy speak for himself: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/449004/anti-radical-mus.... As an apostate I think this guy is a hero.
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.
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.
> 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-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?"
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-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?"
>"Shhh! The humanities departments still think relativism is sexy. They haven't yet figured out that to assume a position of relativism--like the claim to be neutral on issues of distribution--is really a statement that you are on the side of the powerful."
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/...
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/...
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.
The SPLC piece is kind of an unsubstantiated hit piece:
> But major elements of his story have been disputed by former friends, members of his family, fellow jihadists and journalists, and the evidence suggests that Nawaz is far more interested in self-promotion and money than in any particular ideological dispute.
The only concrete fact is that we received a bunch of British government funding. I don't know a lot about the guy, and obviously I don't stuff about surveillance. But wherever the line is for extremist, he's nowhere close.
> But major elements of his story have been disputed by former friends, members of his family, fellow jihadists and journalists, and the evidence suggests that Nawaz is far more interested in self-promotion and money than in any particular ideological dispute.
The only concrete fact is that we received a bunch of British government funding. I don't know a lot about the guy, and obviously I don't stuff about surveillance. But wherever the line is for extremist, he's nowhere close.
I agree, attacking him was a mistake. It's not the SPLC's job to determine who's a good faith critic of Islam and who's doing it for a quick buck.
Really? They list this as one of the examples of him being terrible:
>Nawaz tweeted out a cartoon of Jesus and Muhammad — despite the fact that many Muslims see it as blasphemous to draw Muhammad.
Looks like they're just upset anyone would upset Muslims.
>Nawaz tweeted out a cartoon of Jesus and Muhammad — despite the fact that many Muslims see it as blasphemous to draw Muhammad.
Looks like they're just upset anyone would upset Muslims.
> many Muslims
There's the problem. Many other Muslims also have a representation of Muhammad on their walls on home so clearly have no problem with it.
Why should we take any position at all?
There's the problem. Many other Muslims also have a representation of Muhammad on their walls on home so clearly have no problem with it.
Why should we take any position at all?
Yes, really. All you have to do is actually read the SPLC piece on Nawaz, which makes no mention of whatever this incident you're referring to is.
I'm not defending SPLC, which again I think overstepped by targeting Nawaz. But the argument that they did so to prevent Islam from being criticized appears to oversimplify. Their problem with Nawaz is that they believe he's a profiteering fraud.
I'm not defending SPLC, which again I think overstepped by targeting Nawaz. But the argument that they did so to prevent Islam from being criticized appears to oversimplify. Their problem with Nawaz is that they believe he's a profiteering fraud.
Hmm? I followed the link in this thread, then clicked his name and that was one of 3 incidents listed against him.
Yep, the splcenter page mentions and links to https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/28/speaki...
If I am anti-x, and I profit from it, am I an extremist anti-x-er? Do I deserves to be put on a list with nutjobs and whackos? Does putting me on a list of extremist when my positions are not extreme reduce the credibility of the organisation which does so? Is the article an obvious hitjob?
The answers are: Not necessarily, not necessarily, yes, and yes.
The answers are: Not necessarily, not necessarily, yes, and yes.
Yeah, "profiting" is a typical stupid liberal accusation to invalidate people, because liberals have this shitty idea that "making money == bad". They use the same argument against the Kochs, even though it's been clearly debunked: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-...
I have no problem with Maajid fundraising and paying himself a salary. You need to be careful with the "X profits from fundraising, therefore they're just trying to profit from Y sentiment." That argument could be applied to Planned Parenthood, Churches, and just really anything. Just because an organization is well-funded doesn't mean they're morally bankrupt.
I have no problem with Maajid fundraising and paying himself a salary. You need to be careful with the "X profits from fundraising, therefore they're just trying to profit from Y sentiment." That argument could be applied to Planned Parenthood, Churches, and just really anything. Just because an organization is well-funded doesn't mean they're morally bankrupt.
> typical stupid liberal accusation to invalidate people, because liberals have this shitty idea
Ugh. Ideological rants are not allowed on HN, so please don't post like this again.
If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't comment until you do.
Ugh. Ideological rants are not allowed on HN, so please don't post like this again.
If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't comment until you do.
raverbashing(1)
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.
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.
And extremeist? I'm not sure what they say is even remotely extreme.
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...
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-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.
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-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.
Couldn't agree more. This is extremely dangerous, and extremely poorly thought out on Google's part.
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.
This is an outright lie. There are an astonishing plurality of mainstream, right-wing views about religion and immigration in every European country.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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?
Can you provide examples of this?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
As a citizen of a country that fought a war for independence against another much more powerful country, I believe that it is a mistake to set up a system for removing all violent rhetoric.
That said, I do actually think the terrorists have an inherently worse POV. That's one of the reasons I'm ok with them spouting it.
>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.
That is not now and never has been a part of the fundamental social contract.
That said, I do actually think the terrorists have an inherently worse POV. That's one of the reasons I'm ok with them spouting it.
>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.
That is not now and never has been a part of the fundamental social contract.
> That is not now and never has been a part of the fundamental social contract.
Interestingly, not only is it almost universal, but it's even present on HN and in our immediate interaction.
Interestingly, not only is it almost universal, but it's even present on HN and in our immediate interaction.
"I don't believe being against hate is a "leftist" worldview;"
It sure is not. If you take the dictionary definition of the word hate. But what a lot of people do is use one word which have different meaning for them than for the public. When hate comprise any contrary view from yours, suddenly being against hate is not a healthy worldview.
You have the exact same word-play with equality, equity, meritocracy etc.
Set a good goal which everyone can accept, then swap the meaning of the words used to describe your goal and go after those who "don't think of the children".
It sure is not. If you take the dictionary definition of the word hate. But what a lot of people do is use one word which have different meaning for them than for the public. When hate comprise any contrary view from yours, suddenly being against hate is not a healthy worldview.
You have the exact same word-play with equality, equity, meritocracy etc.
Set a good goal which everyone can accept, then swap the meaning of the words used to describe your goal and go after those who "don't think of the children".
>I don't believe being against hate is a "leftist" worldview
This is the exact trap I was referring to. There are many political issues that are not as morally clear-cut as "people should not enslave other people", but are still lumped in with the "don't hate" rhetoric. The refugee crisis in Europe is one such controversy: it is easy to say "don't hate, all people are equal" but many view it as ethnic replacement which is a form of genocide.
Hatred should of course be resisted but you have to understand that the word is being used as a boogeyman right now.
> many view it as ethnic replacement which is a form of genocide. Hatred should of course be resisted but you have to understand that the word is being used as a boogeyman right now.
I believe that view is hatred. A necessary premise is that some group of people is inferior to your own.
I believe that view is hatred. A necessary premise is that some group of people is inferior to your own.
[deleted]
Getting their politics injected into "The System" was an explicit policy goal of the Left. The term typically used is "entryism".
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.
Well, they can only flag the videos. It will still go through Youtube's review system if anyone appeals.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And reinstated within a day. That's how reporting content works at scale - it takes a minute to get it right.
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.
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.
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.
They still haven't apologized or corrected their major mistake nearly destroying Fark.com last December.
> 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.
He also occasionally says transphobic things about gender pronouns.
He has no issue with gender pronouns, he has issues with the government legislating how people think and speak.
I admit I've not been following his work closely but has he brought up these issues on any other topic than gender pronouns and "SJWs"?
A quick search also suggests he does have actual transphobic issues -
> At the event, Peterson outlined his criticism of transgender people, arguing that the idea that biological sex and gender were independent quantities was “wrong.”
And misogyny issues -
> “I think disciplines like women’s studies should be defunded,”
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/4/11/peterson-talk-dr...
A quick search also suggests he does have actual transphobic issues -
> At the event, Peterson outlined his criticism of transgender people, arguing that the idea that biological sex and gender were independent quantities was “wrong.”
And misogyny issues -
> “I think disciplines like women’s studies should be defunded,”
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/4/11/peterson-talk-dr...
How is defunding women's studies mysogyny? There are so many crap useless majors I would defund given the opportunity.
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.
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.
“When people search for sensitive keywords on YouTube, they will be redirected towards a playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages.”
How much you wanna bet that “feature” is going to be used to alter/redirect the video results for other things like political opinions that Google doesn’t approve of? I foresee the right wing extremists like Breitbart and InfoWars getting affected by this. Not that I like either of those, but I think this is going to be a super sneaky way to curate the feeds that people see and the videos that are searchable online. Twitter did something recently that was very similar to this and people were finding that their followers weren't seeing their tweets.
How much you wanna bet that “feature” is going to be used to alter/redirect the video results for other things like political opinions that Google doesn’t approve of? I foresee the right wing extremists like Breitbart and InfoWars getting affected by this. Not that I like either of those, but I think this is going to be a super sneaky way to curate the feeds that people see and the videos that are searchable online. Twitter did something recently that was very similar to this and people were finding that their followers weren't seeing their tweets.
I would say that this is the only use for this particular feature, because actual calls to violence and extremist messages are already against the rules on youtube and can simply be reported by users.
Like you, I also find the Alex Jones and his ilk to be disturbing and harmful, and consider it a bad sign that people like you and me need to qualify any statement against censorship by explicitly saying we aren't part of the American far right.
Like you, I also find the Alex Jones and his ilk to be disturbing and harmful, and consider it a bad sign that people like you and me need to qualify any statement against censorship by explicitly saying we aren't part of the American far right.
That already happened in Germany - https://qz.com/666871/german-viewers-of-immigrant-hating-you...
"To target immigrant-hating videos, the room-sharing service uses keywords on YouTube’s ad platform that are associated with far-right content and anti-immigration groups, such as Pegida, Germany’s anti-Islamist group, and its leader Lutz Bachmann. Other keywords include “refugees out” (“asylanten raus”), “refugees terrorists,” and “the truth about refugees.”
A German can’t watch a anti-immigrant YouTube video associated with a keyword without first seeing a 30-second preroll ad from Refugees Welcome."
"To target immigrant-hating videos, the room-sharing service uses keywords on YouTube’s ad platform that are associated with far-right content and anti-immigration groups, such as Pegida, Germany’s anti-Islamist group, and its leader Lutz Bachmann. Other keywords include “refugees out” (“asylanten raus”), “refugees terrorists,” and “the truth about refugees.”
A German can’t watch a anti-immigrant YouTube video associated with a keyword without first seeing a 30-second preroll ad from Refugees Welcome."
No, it didn't. Some org is just paying for ads.
If you want to make an Immigrants Not Welcome ad and pay for it to appear before videos with terms you choose you are free to do so.
If you want to make an Immigrants Not Welcome ad and pay for it to appear before videos with terms you choose you are free to do so.
Interesting thought. I agree, this kind of reasoning seems to be the flip side of the same coin. Meaning every opinion that differs from the 'mainstream' or even from what mighty Google considers to be morally or ethically wrong can be just cleverly labeled in a manner that allows them to redirect an individual to what Google thinks is right. 'Follow our politics and our opinions' - And who would be able to control if Google is abiding by the rules, when there are like billions of such difficult decisions to be made on a daily basis?
After the right wing extremists are forced onto their own platforms, how much do you want to bet that their newfound bubble will make them much more extreme and much less likely to see something like a debunking video? It just plays into the persecution complex.
Slate star codex highlighted this dynamic very well here:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative...
"Neutral" is no longer neutral, and if you keep telling people they are bigots undeservedly, they will leave and set up their own media, with blackjack and hookers, creating real extremism.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative...
"Neutral" is no longer neutral, and if you keep telling people they are bigots undeservedly, they will leave and set up their own media, with blackjack and hookers, creating real extremism.
I'd take that bet. There's a big difference between Google and YouTube, look at how they each handle copyright. YouTube pulls things, but Google links to DMCA takedowns.
And extremist content should be harder to find, regardless of source. There's a big difference between extremist content and less violent political discourse, though. And YouTube as a hosting platform vs. hosting your video elsewhere.
That all said, the Google OneBox is already an example of altering search results to display what Google thinks you meant based on potentially slanted sources on the Internet.
And extremist content should be harder to find, regardless of source. There's a big difference between extremist content and less violent political discourse, though. And YouTube as a hosting platform vs. hosting your video elsewhere.
That all said, the Google OneBox is already an example of altering search results to display what Google thinks you meant based on potentially slanted sources on the Internet.
You'd lose the bet - it's already happening. https://qz.com/666871/german-viewers-of-immigrant-hating-you...
This seems to describe a group which bought ad space. That's not google's doing.
Is this why they disabled Jordan Peterson's Youtube today?
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/89244921355616665...
(University of Toronto Psychology Professor who makes popular YouTube videos and draws ire from a lot of SJW types)
~~~
In a way, Google is announcing to startups that making a YouTube successor/killer is still possible. As they degrade their own service, they open up more space for newcomers and competitors.
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/89244921355616665...
(University of Toronto Psychology Professor who makes popular YouTube videos and draws ire from a lot of SJW types)
~~~
In a way, Google is announcing to startups that making a YouTube successor/killer is still possible. As they degrade their own service, they open up more space for newcomers and competitors.
Although it could have been coincidence, it does seem like Google is making a statement with the temporary suspension of Peterson's account that these initiatives are clearly targeted at users posted politically incorrect content.
[deleted]
"Terrorism is an attack on open societies, and addressing the threat posed by violence and hate is a critical challenge for us all." [0]
"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."
Note the seamless transition from terrorism, to hate, to hate speech. Therefore, to protect open societies, we have to put censors to work on our users. How far we got in a couple of blog posts!
Note that the "No Hate Speech Movement" is "A youth campaign of the Council of Europe"[1] (so, not a movement at all), and the Council of Europe is an intergovernmental organization [2], so these are quite literally government censors.
Speaking of openness, is the full list of NGOs participating in the Trusted Flagger program available anywhere?
[0]: https://www.blog.google/topics/google-europe/four-steps-were...
[1]: https://www.nohatespeechmovement.org/
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe
"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."
Note the seamless transition from terrorism, to hate, to hate speech. Therefore, to protect open societies, we have to put censors to work on our users. How far we got in a couple of blog posts!
Note that the "No Hate Speech Movement" is "A youth campaign of the Council of Europe"[1] (so, not a movement at all), and the Council of Europe is an intergovernmental organization [2], so these are quite literally government censors.
Speaking of openness, is the full list of NGOs participating in the Trusted Flagger program available anywhere?
[0]: https://www.blog.google/topics/google-europe/four-steps-were...
[1]: https://www.nohatespeechmovement.org/
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe
This needs more visibility. Behind many a do-gooder trying to rid the world of 'hate' is a well-funded organization or government with an agenda trying to make cynical end run around free speech.
> Extremists and terrorists seek to attack and erode not just our security, but also our values; the very things that make our societies open and free
I wish they'd articulate what values those are.
When a company the size of Google embarks on "preventing and stopping" extremists I am a little leery. Terrorism and extremism have often become synonyms with "speech I don't agree with". I have seen people called "nazis" all too easily on popular political forums like Reddit's /r/politics for daring to criticize the popular opinions. So maybe I am too paranoid here but I'd take what Google does with a grain of salt.
You say something they disagree with and you might just find your email, youtube, drive, google docs, and other accounts removed...
I wish they'd articulate what values those are.
When a company the size of Google embarks on "preventing and stopping" extremists I am a little leery. Terrorism and extremism have often become synonyms with "speech I don't agree with". I have seen people called "nazis" all too easily on popular political forums like Reddit's /r/politics for daring to criticize the popular opinions. So maybe I am too paranoid here but I'd take what Google does with a grain of salt.
You say something they disagree with and you might just find your email, youtube, drive, google docs, and other accounts removed...
It just hit me that if I want to get an accurate view of what people think of a contentious topic, I can't trust Google or Youtube as a gateway anymore. I simply don't know what machines or "experts" have decided to hide from me.
You never could: any "consensus" you see, the media consensus, the Google search consensus, the Facebook consensus, the Youtube consensus, the consensus of people on the street in your hometown, all have their own biases (social, technological and statistical even if you can escape the political) and they always had. The best you can hope for is to be aware of them.
It's not about consensus, it's about verifiability. When the president justifies policy because group X believes Y, I could theoretically fact-check what X actually says -- we unfortunately live in a post-truth world where that's a necessary check on democracy. I can't do that if Google has decided X is too unpleasant to be heard.
Today Google disabled a Jordan Peterson's account, including his YouTube channel with millions of views. This is a clinical psychologist professor who is openly anti-Marxist (but also openly anti-fascist, and anti-antisemitic). No explanation given. Just plainly said he wasn't following the ToS but not particularly what.
Only after hours of pressure from many people they reinstated it silently.
We need anti-trust laws to curve this authoritarian Internet rising.
Only after hours of pressure from many people they reinstated it silently.
We need anti-trust laws to curve this authoritarian Internet rising.
> openly anti-Marxist (but also openly anti-fascist, and anti-antisemitic)
Openly anti-trans too.
Openly anti-trans too.
> Anti-trans
A quick (and biased) search turns up:
"His employers have warned that, while they support his right to academic freedom and free speech, he could run afoul of the Ontario Human Rights code and his faculty responsibilities should he refuse to use alternative pronouns when requested."
Now I'm sure there's more to the issue, but that's kind of my point - increasingly, not ceding to every demand by group X is labelled as being 'anti-X', and ending any discussion.
A quick (and biased) search turns up:
"His employers have warned that, while they support his right to academic freedom and free speech, he could run afoul of the Ontario Human Rights code and his faculty responsibilities should he refuse to use alternative pronouns when requested."
Now I'm sure there's more to the issue, but that's kind of my point - increasingly, not ceding to every demand by group X is labelled as being 'anti-X', and ending any discussion.
> At the event, Peterson outlined his criticism of transgender people, arguing that the idea that biological sex and gender were independent quantities was “wrong.”
No, he's actually anti-trans too.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/4/11/peterson-talk-dr...
No, he's actually anti-trans too.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/4/11/peterson-talk-dr...
You're proving my point - both disagreeing with the idea that sex and gender are independent, and hating and assaulting trans people, get thrown in the same 'anti-trans' bucket.
Wouldn't it be more fair, even necessary, to just say "he doesn't want pronoun choice to be enforced, and doesn't think biological sex and gender are distinct"? Why distort his views by condensing them to 'anti-trans'?
Wouldn't it be more fair, even necessary, to just say "he doesn't want pronoun choice to be enforced, and doesn't think biological sex and gender are distinct"? Why distort his views by condensing them to 'anti-trans'?
> he doesn't want pronoun choice to be enforced
That just makes him a dickhead that should be ignored.
> doesn't think biological sex and gender are distinct
Which makes him wrong, scientifically (his testimony to the Canadian Senate has him saying that because the vast majority of people express their biological* sex as their gender, it would violate causality to accept they weren't linked), and, because he keeps using this nonsense to push his "trans people are just SJW leftists trying to take control" rhetoric, that makes him anti-trans.
For more about the spectrum of biological sex (way more than 2) and the expressed biological genders that can result (more than 2, not necessarily matching the biological sex) -
http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
That just makes him a dickhead that should be ignored.
> doesn't think biological sex and gender are distinct
Which makes him wrong, scientifically (his testimony to the Canadian Senate has him saying that because the vast majority of people express their biological* sex as their gender, it would violate causality to accept they weren't linked), and, because he keeps using this nonsense to push his "trans people are just SJW leftists trying to take control" rhetoric, that makes him anti-trans.
For more about the spectrum of biological sex (way more than 2) and the expressed biological genders that can result (more than 2, not necessarily matching the biological sex) -
http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
the article doesn't back up your claim with evidence at all.
you should listen to his arguments before making such a swift assumption. He isn't anti-trans at all, and in fact has quite a few trans supporters - his argument is that compelled speech (legally mandating the use of non-binary pronouns) is a line that should not be crossed. In one of his videos he said that if someone asked him to use a pronoun decently he would do so, just that he strongly disagreed with the legislation.
Literally his own words -
> At the event, Peterson outlined his criticism of transgender people, arguing that the idea that biological sex and gender were independent quantities was “wrong.”
> At the event, Peterson outlined his criticism of transgender people, arguing that the idea that biological sex and gender were independent quantities was “wrong.”
those aren't his own words though are they? they're someone paraphrasing his words. If you can link me to a quote from him directly then I'll believe it but that statement is ambiguous outside of context. For example, it seems that born-male-sex individuals are more likely to be transgender than born-female-sex individuals, which suggests non-independence of the factors. Is this observation transphobic? I don't believe it is. And that's not me citing Dr Peterson's argument - just one I've noticed personally.
http://skepchick.org/2016/10/a-response-to-jordan-peterson/
To me, his words directly quoted in that article are sufficient to show he's transphobic (but certainly doing a good job of cloaking it in "free speech" rhetoric.)
To me, his words directly quoted in that article are sufficient to show he's transphobic (but certainly doing a good job of cloaking it in "free speech" rhetoric.)
if in your mind he's doing a good job cloaking hate in free speech rhetoric, how can you be so sure that he isn't actually arguing the free speech case? Hate isn't a subtle emotion, and Dr Peterson's arguments are reasonable to those who aren't fully committed to the postmodern understanding of sex and gender. Both sides of the debate are perfectly reasonable to hold and the issue isn't in any way settled (at least in part due to how politicised the study of gender and sex has become) so to suggest that Dr Peterson hates trans people because he disagrees with the far-left narrative on gender is misguided at best. If you think his views are outdated then that's a fair criticism but it's not like the current postmodern perspective on the issue is old and well-established.
> how can you be so sure that he isn't actually arguing the free speech case?
A fair point. But I'd suggest that if he was just actually arguing the free speech case, there would be no need for arguing whether trans people are a legitimate thing (cf his comments on biological sex <=> gender causality). His broadening of his argument to that and "leftists are trying to force new words into the language" (cf Canadian Senate testimony) suggests he's not actually entirely about the free speech but rather just finding a fanatical new audience for his railing against SJWs and snowflakes and political correctness.
> to suggest that Dr Peterson hates trans people
I'd say "anti-trans" rather than "hates trans" - there can be a world between those two viewpoints.
A fair point. But I'd suggest that if he was just actually arguing the free speech case, there would be no need for arguing whether trans people are a legitimate thing (cf his comments on biological sex <=> gender causality). His broadening of his argument to that and "leftists are trying to force new words into the language" (cf Canadian Senate testimony) suggests he's not actually entirely about the free speech but rather just finding a fanatical new audience for his railing against SJWs and snowflakes and political correctness.
> to suggest that Dr Peterson hates trans people
I'd say "anti-trans" rather than "hates trans" - there can be a world between those two viewpoints.
it doesn't seem to me that he's saying trans people aren't a legitimate thing. My read is that he's saying that gender is related to sex in the sense that your gender is somewhere in a spectrum of male-female (in a similar sense to masculinity-femininity). Which every single trans person I've ever met or spoken to fits into.
> Openly anti-trans too.
He is not against trans people at all. He is against being legally _forced_ to use dozens of new gender pronouns.
You keep using far left sources who don't back their claims. Jordan Peterson has hundreds of _hours_ of videos and lectures where he explais his positions. Link one of those to have an argument. Not some paraphrased nonsense to justify your position.
He is not against trans people at all. He is against being legally _forced_ to use dozens of new gender pronouns.
You keep using far left sources who don't back their claims. Jordan Peterson has hundreds of _hours_ of videos and lectures where he explais his positions. Link one of those to have an argument. Not some paraphrased nonsense to justify your position.
http://skepchick.org/2016/10/a-response-to-jordan-peterson/
Do his words there count as "not some paraphrased nonsense"?
Do his words there count as "not some paraphrased nonsense"?
Maybe we should nationalize YouTube to provide a safe space for anti-Marxists
I see a lot of anti-expert pro-speech comments. That’s great and all at the theoretical government law side of things, but YouTube is a private organization that _is_ being used as a platform by organizations like ISIS to radicalize random individuals who then go out and kill innocent people. Should Google allow these videos to be on equal footing with funny cat videos?
To me YouTube being a private organization is beside the point; I would like the dominant mediums of communication of our era to be open and free, not restricted and censored.
It makes very little practical difference if the censorship comes from a large company or a government if at the end of the day you can't say what you want.
And yes:
I do believe in the basic free speech bargain. I do think it's better to have ISIS recruitment videos (and anti-ISIS videos, and everything else) up freely than to have some organization sitting in judgement of what's "acceptable" and not.
Of course it's a trade-off. There is a cost to social harmony from free speech (& democracy!). China seems to be doing pretty well with a very different approach; they value social harmony highly.
But I was raised like a good little patriotic American boy, so I value free speech pretty damn highly, and I find this policy misguide and scary.
Also, let's not kid ourselves -- ISIS is just an excuse. I guaran-fucking-tee this policy will be used to stifle all kinds of objectionable, non-politcally-correct videos.
It makes very little practical difference if the censorship comes from a large company or a government if at the end of the day you can't say what you want.
And yes:
I do believe in the basic free speech bargain. I do think it's better to have ISIS recruitment videos (and anti-ISIS videos, and everything else) up freely than to have some organization sitting in judgement of what's "acceptable" and not.
Of course it's a trade-off. There is a cost to social harmony from free speech (& democracy!). China seems to be doing pretty well with a very different approach; they value social harmony highly.
But I was raised like a good little patriotic American boy, so I value free speech pretty damn highly, and I find this policy misguide and scary.
Also, let's not kid ourselves -- ISIS is just an excuse. I guaran-fucking-tee this policy will be used to stifle all kinds of objectionable, non-politcally-correct videos.
Well, the private organization thing is really the issue in a nutshell: Google is not a public space, no matter how large it is. What drives them is revenue, not free speech.
Google is a company backed by advertising. Youtube has faced very noticeable controversy from advertisers (including a "boycott" -- https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-a...) over "hate speech" and other offensive content.
In my opinion, this update is a direct response to that issue (the paragraph on "de-monetizing" content that is found unacceptable, but still within content guidelines, suggests to me as much). This is all about placating advertisers, who didn't want an advertisement for Brand XYZ appearing to ISIS recruitment videos and the like. I can't really think of a way to get around this -- to do so, you are basically asking Google to force brands to pay for content they find objectionable. (Which they won't do, in the end.)
Google is a company backed by advertising. Youtube has faced very noticeable controversy from advertisers (including a "boycott" -- https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-a...) over "hate speech" and other offensive content.
In my opinion, this update is a direct response to that issue (the paragraph on "de-monetizing" content that is found unacceptable, but still within content guidelines, suggests to me as much). This is all about placating advertisers, who didn't want an advertisement for Brand XYZ appearing to ISIS recruitment videos and the like. I can't really think of a way to get around this -- to do so, you are basically asking Google to force brands to pay for content they find objectionable. (Which they won't do, in the end.)
Hmm, but why cut off comments or restrict search results if it's just about placating advertisers? There seems to be more here at play.
I agree Google doesn't care about free speech.
I'm not sure about the best remedy to the problem. Things as diverse as legislation to alternative non-centralized social network to simply trying to change corporate and cultural values all come to mind...
I agree Google doesn't care about free speech.
I'm not sure about the best remedy to the problem. Things as diverse as legislation to alternative non-centralized social network to simply trying to change corporate and cultural values all come to mind...
You never had the right to a platform for your speech, starting day one of the country you profess to love. "Freedom of speech" was always intended as freedom from the doctrine of seditious libel, freedom from the government shielding itself against inconvenient speech.
There is a reason every single state constitution has provisions on the abuse of speech, and that is because we always saw the potential for this. (Why not the constitution? Because the Federal government has no jurisdiction over speech. It's up to the states. See e.g. Federalist #84)
This idea that "freedom of speech" means "I can say whatever I want, and any and all platforms must amplify what I say" is a completely misguided idea that has no basis in reality, the constitution, or even the debates the founders had.
There is a reason every single state constitution has provisions on the abuse of speech, and that is because we always saw the potential for this. (Why not the constitution? Because the Federal government has no jurisdiction over speech. It's up to the states. See e.g. Federalist #84)
This idea that "freedom of speech" means "I can say whatever I want, and any and all platforms must amplify what I say" is a completely misguided idea that has no basis in reality, the constitution, or even the debates the founders had.
You're arguing legalese but I'm arguing morals and ideals.
> "I can say whatever I want, and any and all platforms must amplify what I say"
That's not an accurate summary of what I want.
Instead of 'any and all' and 'amplify', how about 'dominant' and 'not suppress'?
That is, I'm saying that pervasive communication mediums like YouTube or Twitter or Facebook should not be arbitrarily censoring content.
That's all.
(Is it really that dangerous to let people express themselves?)
> "I can say whatever I want, and any and all platforms must amplify what I say"
That's not an accurate summary of what I want.
Instead of 'any and all' and 'amplify', how about 'dominant' and 'not suppress'?
That is, I'm saying that pervasive communication mediums like YouTube or Twitter or Facebook should not be arbitrarily censoring content.
That's all.
(Is it really that dangerous to let people express themselves?)
> You're arguing legalese but I'm arguing morals and ideals.
Sure you are. Except... you tie them specifically to the American interpretation. Which is firmly rooted in the Constitution/1st amendment, and what our founders thought about it.
Quoth: "But I was raised like a good little patriotic American boy, so I value free speech pretty damn highly"
So, either you subscribe to those specific values, or you should scrub the patriotic rah-rah from your argument.
> Instead of 'any and all' and 'amplify', how about 'dominant' and 'not suppress'?
Nobody "suppresses" anything. If you want to be a white supremacist, host your own server. These platforms are private entities - they get to choose who is welcome. (cf https://xkcd.com/1357/)
> Is it really that dangerous to let people express themselves?
Yes. Once a line is crossed, because at that point it turns from speech to acts of aggression utilizing speech. As I said above, everybody arguing free speech understood that back when we decided what basic rights we wanted or didn't want.
And please don't argue "slippery slope", because that's a strawman. There's a very clearly recognizable line from free speech to hate speech, be it white supremacy, gay bashing, nazism, or ISIS. And the vast majority of people is perfectly capable of recognizing that line
(Here's an interesting read on the whole concept that there are limits to tolerance: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...)
Sure you are. Except... you tie them specifically to the American interpretation. Which is firmly rooted in the Constitution/1st amendment, and what our founders thought about it.
Quoth: "But I was raised like a good little patriotic American boy, so I value free speech pretty damn highly"
So, either you subscribe to those specific values, or you should scrub the patriotic rah-rah from your argument.
> Instead of 'any and all' and 'amplify', how about 'dominant' and 'not suppress'?
Nobody "suppresses" anything. If you want to be a white supremacist, host your own server. These platforms are private entities - they get to choose who is welcome. (cf https://xkcd.com/1357/)
> Is it really that dangerous to let people express themselves?
Yes. Once a line is crossed, because at that point it turns from speech to acts of aggression utilizing speech. As I said above, everybody arguing free speech understood that back when we decided what basic rights we wanted or didn't want.
And please don't argue "slippery slope", because that's a strawman. There's a very clearly recognizable line from free speech to hate speech, be it white supremacy, gay bashing, nazism, or ISIS. And the vast majority of people is perfectly capable of recognizing that line
(Here's an interesting read on the whole concept that there are limits to tolerance: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...)
> These platforms are private entities - they get to choose who is welcome.
I feel like we're talking past each other. My belief is that when a corporation becomes large and omnipresent enough, it's basically a de-facto government, and should probably be constrained from abusing its power in similar ways.
Imagine that YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit &c decide that idea X is inappropriate. It will become difficult for us, as a society, to have a discussion about X, because it has been suppressed in our dominant discussion forums. That's not a healthy thing for an open society.
I feel like we're talking past each other. My belief is that when a corporation becomes large and omnipresent enough, it's basically a de-facto government, and should probably be constrained from abusing its power in similar ways.
Imagine that YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit &c decide that idea X is inappropriate. It will become difficult for us, as a society, to have a discussion about X, because it has been suppressed in our dominant discussion forums. That's not a healthy thing for an open society.
Again, your OP was tied specifically to the US interpretation.
But even if we leave that aside, a loss of YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit is not a threat to discussion. You seem to imply that before these existed, there wasn't any actual discussion of important topics.
Sure, social media has enabled massive amounts of screeching and foaming at the mouth, but beyond that, the impact on useful debate is more than doubtful.
Unless you prefer populism over democracy, in which case it's an incredibly useful tool.
But even if we leave that aside, a loss of YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit is not a threat to discussion. You seem to imply that before these existed, there wasn't any actual discussion of important topics.
Sure, social media has enabled massive amounts of screeching and foaming at the mouth, but beyond that, the impact on useful debate is more than doubtful.
Unless you prefer populism over democracy, in which case it's an incredibly useful tool.
Do you believe that videos of 3-year olds executing prisoners is really worth broadcasting? Old men getting their head stabbed with a bayonet until they die? Pilots burned alive?
I'm all for free speech, but why should Google distribute that for free so we can have more lone wolf terrorist attacks?
I'm all for free speech, but why should Google distribute that for free so we can have more lone wolf terrorist attacks?
That's not what he's talking about. For example, today, it is much easier on social media to share left-wing opinions than to explain the drawbacks of, for example, positive discrimination or massive fundings for [insert minority here].
Maybe that's what you want – not be aware of those drawbacks. But those people who are censored still exist, are more rejected, and they can't confront their ideas, so they derive towards extremism. Now you can't hear their demands, you get surprised with their votes (hello Trump voters) and they keep being racists (or insert minority here).
Extremism isn't a birth defect. It's a reaction to circumstances. Go visit 9Gag. Under anonymity, huge numbers of young people have very pronounced hatred towards minorities and SJWs.
I'd prefer seeing this debate happening on Youtube and public spaces than excluding them than not knowing where they are.
Maybe that's what you want – not be aware of those drawbacks. But those people who are censored still exist, are more rejected, and they can't confront their ideas, so they derive towards extremism. Now you can't hear their demands, you get surprised with their votes (hello Trump voters) and they keep being racists (or insert minority here).
Extremism isn't a birth defect. It's a reaction to circumstances. Go visit 9Gag. Under anonymity, huge numbers of young people have very pronounced hatred towards minorities and SJWs.
I'd prefer seeing this debate happening on Youtube and public spaces than excluding them than not knowing where they are.
If those things are happening in the world, then I do think it's valuable to be able to see them.
Recent example: Trump decided to end the CIA program arming rebel groups in Syria after watching a video of one such group behead a young boy.
Recent example: Trump decided to end the CIA program arming rebel groups in Syria after watching a video of one such group behead a young boy.
> Trump decided to end the CIA program arming rebel groups in Syria after watching a video of one such group behead a young boy
Do you have a source for that? The only one I could find is The Weekly Standard which doesn't cite any officials or sources itself.
Do you have a source for that? The only one I could find is The Weekly Standard which doesn't cite any officials or sources itself.
Yeah, that's my source too, by way of Twitter. I would assume they're not just completely making it up, but who knows?
Stories with no cited sources, anonymous or otherwise, are almost certainly making it up (or, to be charitable, conflating several disjunct events into a causal stream that doesn't exist.)
There's a strong point to be made that taking the trouble to burn a man alive inside a big jail is only valuable to them because the citizens of their enemy countries are watching.
And there's also the difference between reporting horrible, graphical news, and being the platform for ISIS to tell and show them in their terms.
And there's also the difference between reporting horrible, graphical news, and being the platform for ISIS to tell and show them in their terms.
Such videos are already against Google's terms of service.
This new policy and the tech that backs it are little more than a political cudgel.
This new policy and the tech that backs it are little more than a political cudgel.
What an absolute joke of a response.
> But I was raised like a good little patriotic American boy, so I value free speech pretty damn highly, and I find this policy misguide and scary. Also, let's not kid ourselves -- ISIS is just an excuse. I guaran-fucking-tee this policy will be used to stifle all kinds of objectionable, non-politcally-correct videos.
What about that isn't clear to you? He supports it on principle.
> But I was raised like a good little patriotic American boy, so I value free speech pretty damn highly, and I find this policy misguide and scary. Also, let's not kid ourselves -- ISIS is just an excuse. I guaran-fucking-tee this policy will be used to stifle all kinds of objectionable, non-politcally-correct videos.
What about that isn't clear to you? He supports it on principle.
Sounds similar to a fair bit of video game content. Bayonetting innocents, adolescents brutally murdering other adolescents... Drawn or photorealistically rendered or real, where do you draw the line?
One is fiction and the other is not.
If ISIS released purely fictional accounts using actors and advanced CGI of the exact same content, you would be OK with it showing up on YouTube then?
Would a disclaimer blunt its impact as a recruitment tool?
Would a disclaimer blunt its impact as a recruitment tool?
It's effectively a privately-owned public space, due to the network effects. Simply presenting the ISIS vs cat videos dichotomy is intellectually dishonest - it ignores the subtler effects of a politically motivated private entity becoming an arbiter of speech.
For instance, Jordan Peterson's Google account was suspended today for "violations of terms of service", with no other reason given and no official channel for recourse. It was only reinstated after news of the ban began gaining traction on twitter and other outlets. What will happen to smaller entities caught in the net, with less social clout to defend themselves?
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/89244909895099187...
For instance, Jordan Peterson's Google account was suspended today for "violations of terms of service", with no other reason given and no official channel for recourse. It was only reinstated after news of the ban began gaining traction on twitter and other outlets. What will happen to smaller entities caught in the net, with less social clout to defend themselves?
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/89244909895099187...
Thats pretty scary.
This is almost drumhead court martial for peoples online personas. :-/
This is almost drumhead court martial for peoples online personas. :-/
What do you mean by 'equal footing.' The footing that videos like these stand on is only as strong as the support that they have from viewers. We live in a marketplace of ideas. People who support ISIS are not going to stop because Google takes the videos down, but it does start a dangerous precedent to censor any content Google doesn't like.
Radicalization is real. It's why terrorism works. If a private service wants to restrict videos of torture killings and beheadings followed by propaganda, why not?
Those shouldn't be tolerated any more than videos that show torture of animals or abuse of children.
Seems like a reasonable standard and not necessarilya slippery slope?
Those shouldn't be tolerated any more than videos that show torture of animals or abuse of children.
Seems like a reasonable standard and not necessarilya slippery slope?
Radicalization is real. It's why terrorism works. If a private service wants to restrict videos of torture killings and beheadings followed by propaganda, why not?
If this was all that was censored then we'd likely be more agreeable. Unfortunately there is cases like this which seems to be from today:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14903834
If this was all that was censored then we'd likely be more agreeable. Unfortunately there is cases like this which seems to be from today:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14903834
So, where would something like the Saddam Hussain capture/execution videos fall? Or the movies depicting the same? How about the movie Hannibal? Does it being fictional make the over-the-top torture and violence OK?
Saddam Hussain falls under the category of 'news' -- he was an official leader of an entire country so what happens to him is relevant in history and should be documented. Fiction is an entirely separate category.. we can watch Game of Thrones which is massively violent and understand that it's different from reality and propaganda.
If we have no limits, then should YouTube also allow pro-child rape videos showing how awesome a 3-year old gang bang is with a crowd of guys cheering that on?
At some point you have to draw the line. I admit this is a very hard and nuanced thing to do, I generally support free speech, but I think that ISIS deserves a platform on YouTube. I'm not sure I'd support outlawing it from the government level, but that doesn't mean we can't do things to curb its influence online.
If we have no limits, then should YouTube also allow pro-child rape videos showing how awesome a 3-year old gang bang is with a crowd of guys cheering that on?
At some point you have to draw the line. I admit this is a very hard and nuanced thing to do, I generally support free speech, but I think that ISIS deserves a platform on YouTube. I'm not sure I'd support outlawing it from the government level, but that doesn't mean we can't do things to curb its influence online.
*i _dont_ that ISIS deserves a platform on YouTube
The mention of ISIS is a smokescreen. Even though terrorism was used as an early justification of it, in practice the "hate speech" label is almost always used for far less violent ideas and people. In fact, it is more likely to be used against liberal Muslims than against Islamic terrorists! (See [0])
In fact, from an anti-terrorism perspective, it may be more effective to leave ISIS's videos up (and keep tabs on their most frequent watchers, if anything). It can even have direct benefits in terms of intelligence gathering (e.g. the locations shown can be identified).
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14903754
In fact, from an anti-terrorism perspective, it may be more effective to leave ISIS's videos up (and keep tabs on their most frequent watchers, if anything). It can even have direct benefits in terms of intelligence gathering (e.g. the locations shown can be identified).
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14903754
In fact, it is more likely to be used against liberal Muslims than against Islamic terrorists! (See [0])
That is not a reference that supports your claim.
That is not a reference that supports your claim.
> but YouTube is a private organization that _is_ being used as a platform by organizations like ISIS to radicalize random individuals who then go out and kill innocent people
by that logic they shouldn't allow US military recruitment videos either
by that logic they shouldn't allow US military recruitment videos either
Most people do not see ISIS and the US military as morally equivalent.
One of these things is not like the other.
whats the difference? that one of them is the "good" guys?
Yep. In this case one is really in another league than the other.
We are not talking about the Russian. We are not talking about the Arabs. We are talking about the Anders Bering Breiviks, the Timothy McVeighs, the real nazis of 2017 and of course ISIS.
We are not talking about the Russian. We are not talking about the Arabs. We are talking about the Anders Bering Breiviks, the Timothy McVeighs, the real nazis of 2017 and of course ISIS.
mcveigh was a decorated product of the US military, I'm not quite sure he's the example you're looking for
Doesn't change the fact that he acted alone and not because the US military told him to.
Or am I missing the really juicy part here?
Or am I missing the really juicy part here?
I'm not disputing that the US didn't ask him to commit an act of terror against itself. but it did ask him to do terrible things. in the context of the post we are replying to ("YouTube is a private organization that _is_ being used as a platform by organizations like ISIS to radicalize random individuals who then go out and kill innocent people"), I think it's a bit reductionist to put too much value in military vs. paramilitary or "the military told him to do X." all I mean is that in the quoted post, "ISIS" can be replaced with a number of military and paramilitary forces throughout the world and the statement will still ring true in different populations. youtube shouldn't target specific organizations that they think are bad. they should apply more general rules that also apply to organizations that they think are good.
and no, mcveigh did not act alone. he conspired with terry nichols and michael fortier, who also served and met in the military. according to his biography, mcveigh took joy in being ordered to slaughter surrendered prisoners. did the military radicalize him?
further: did it train him in the skills he needed to successfully carry out such an atrocious act? was he provided adequate care when he returned home from iraq and kuwait, broken? to what extent is the military responsible? should youtube ban anti-US videos in general? does an organization need to be on a particular US government-sanctioned list to be considered a terrorist organization by youtube? the list of questions goes on.
overall, what I'm trying to express is that it is bad for youtube to make decisions based on politics. if they want to make decisions on morals, that's fine, but apply it to everyone, not just ISIS. either that, or allow them all.
and no, mcveigh did not act alone. he conspired with terry nichols and michael fortier, who also served and met in the military. according to his biography, mcveigh took joy in being ordered to slaughter surrendered prisoners. did the military radicalize him?
further: did it train him in the skills he needed to successfully carry out such an atrocious act? was he provided adequate care when he returned home from iraq and kuwait, broken? to what extent is the military responsible? should youtube ban anti-US videos in general? does an organization need to be on a particular US government-sanctioned list to be considered a terrorist organization by youtube? the list of questions goes on.
overall, what I'm trying to express is that it is bad for youtube to make decisions based on politics. if they want to make decisions on morals, that's fine, but apply it to everyone, not just ISIS. either that, or allow them all.
Well argued and reasonable. Have my upvote.
Our opinions will still differ somewhat though.
Our opinions will still differ somewhat though.
> When people search for sensitive keywords on YouTube, they will be redirected towards a playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages.
Sigh. The chance for overlap with educational videos is going to be pretty damned high. Just like past efforts to stop porn have also stopped a large number of sex education sites.
Also, how are they judging accuracy? That's one key bit of information they're missing here. What's the escalation path for videos improperly caught up in the automated sweeps? Their existing copyright flagging mechanisms shows the inadequacy of their automated systems to date. Who reviews the human flags? The Alex Mauer YouTube debacle (a contracted worker taking down let's play videos to put pressure on a developer unrelated to the videos) has shown that the power is too far in the accuser's hands.
Sigh. The chance for overlap with educational videos is going to be pretty damned high. Just like past efforts to stop porn have also stopped a large number of sex education sites.
Also, how are they judging accuracy? That's one key bit of information they're missing here. What's the escalation path for videos improperly caught up in the automated sweeps? Their existing copyright flagging mechanisms shows the inadequacy of their automated systems to date. Who reviews the human flags? The Alex Mauer YouTube debacle (a contracted worker taking down let's play videos to put pressure on a developer unrelated to the videos) has shown that the power is too far in the accuser's hands.
> past efforts to stop porn have also stopped a large number of sex education sites
That raises an interesting example: YouTube has effectively blocked porn, and I haven't heard anyone complain.
That raises an interesting example: YouTube has effectively blocked porn, and I haven't heard anyone complain.
The strength of your convictions are only tested at the extremes. You can't say you believe in free speech if that only includes speech you like.
This is a weak argument. It is possible to both believe in free speech – that is, the right for anybody to publish whatever views they want – while simultaneously deciding that you do not want to publish those views yourself, nor support the publishing of them.
That is certainly true but it uncovers the issue of whether we consider free speech a value or not. Google is saying that it isn't.
It's going to get very problematic. When big players squeeze the Overton Window it becomes an Overton Bubble. We'll be blindsided by more electoral decisions that are puzzling due to preference falsification.
It's going to get very problematic. When big players squeeze the Overton Window it becomes an Overton Bubble. We'll be blindsided by more electoral decisions that are puzzling due to preference falsification.
The US extremist version of free speech isn't shared anywhere else in the world. Most countries are happy with their limited version of free speech.
And even the US has limits on what you can publish - see for example the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Crush_Video_Prohibition...
And even the US has limits on what you can publish - see for example the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Crush_Video_Prohibition...
It's interesting that some consider the notion of freedom as extremism, with all the attached implications.
Here lies individualist-collectivist divide.
Here lies individualist-collectivist divide.
Not really. There are very few people who consider 'freedom' in that sense to be an absolute right; the argument is merely about which restrictions are acceptable, and which are not.
>Most countries are happy with the lack of free speech.
There, fixed it for you. There are a lot of human rights "most countries" have historically opposed.
There, fixed it for you. There are a lot of human rights "most countries" have historically opposed.
I'm sure the writers of the constitution didn't imagine how much power the commerce clause would give the federal government.
> The US extremist version of free speech isn't shared anywhere else in the world.
It's not law anywhere else in the world, but many people share it, myself included.
Do not confuse law with ideals - after all, google acting as a censor is perfectly legal even in the 'free speech extremist' US.
It's not law anywhere else in the world, but many people share it, myself included.
Do not confuse law with ideals - after all, google acting as a censor is perfectly legal even in the 'free speech extremist' US.
Historically, speech isn't censored to protect people, it is done to protect institutions or governments.
The slippery slope we are careening down is getting pretty troubling.
The slippery slope we are careening down is getting pretty troubling.
Google has a commitment to appear to fight terror content online. They do not have an actual commitment to fight it.
They have no independent definition of what terrorism is. They have made no statements about how any one definition of terrorism is better or worse than any other one. They've done nothing proactively to identify terrorist or prevent terrorist acts.
Instead, they're trying to do something without actually being responsible for it. They've gathered together their own pack of cool kids and those folks have been tasked with telling Google what to do. In this manner the company actually stands for nothing more than "We've tried to cover all the bases of groups that are important to us that might complain"
That's not taking a stand. That's just an odd combination of shrewdness, weaseling, and self-congratulation. Par for the course for big SV companies. Some huge companies will control what kinds of political posters go up in its halls -- an act with nothing more than symbolic meaning -- while cooperating with dictatorships that use their services to hunt down dissidents. Related: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/16/how-social-media-helps-d...
As tech folks, we've been congratulating ourselves way too much and taking way too little of an honest look at what actual impact we're having. That's gotta stop.
They have no independent definition of what terrorism is. They have made no statements about how any one definition of terrorism is better or worse than any other one. They've done nothing proactively to identify terrorist or prevent terrorist acts.
Instead, they're trying to do something without actually being responsible for it. They've gathered together their own pack of cool kids and those folks have been tasked with telling Google what to do. In this manner the company actually stands for nothing more than "We've tried to cover all the bases of groups that are important to us that might complain"
That's not taking a stand. That's just an odd combination of shrewdness, weaseling, and self-congratulation. Par for the course for big SV companies. Some huge companies will control what kinds of political posters go up in its halls -- an act with nothing more than symbolic meaning -- while cooperating with dictatorships that use their services to hunt down dissidents. Related: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/16/how-social-media-helps-d...
As tech folks, we've been congratulating ourselves way too much and taking way too little of an honest look at what actual impact we're having. That's gotta stop.
I honestly don't know what to do about this situation. I don't even know if it is a situation, or just some drama whipped up by the right wing press.
I'd love to see some real stats. How many videos are we talking about here? How many views do they get?
I'd love to see some real stats. How many videos are we talking about here? How many views do they get?
That's the thing, though. Extremist videos are already against the rules, can be reported by users, and removed if the reports have merit.
Whether it's exaggerated "by the right-wing press" or not (I find it concerning despite being left-leaning and not the press), I don't like the notion of any politically-aligned parties having an outsized role in deciding what's "appropriate".
Whether it's exaggerated "by the right-wing press" or not (I find it concerning despite being left-leaning and not the press), I don't like the notion of any politically-aligned parties having an outsized role in deciding what's "appropriate".
I agree. Numbers and absolutes really help.
Awesome, just what I've always wanted: Machine learning and unelected, unaccountable groups of experts to tell me what videos I'm allowed to comment on.
So happy to see free speech is alive & kicking in the west.
So happy to see free speech is alive & kicking in the west.
Its Youtube, not a public space and not something government controlled. They are free to say what is and isn't on their system. What if you made a system and someone took that from you and they demanded that ISIS be given equal rights to people with your political leanings?
Don't tolerate intolerance. Thats not tolerance is spineless.
Don't tolerate intolerance. Thats not tolerance is spineless.
But I think Youtube is a public space, one of the most important ones there is right now. The fact that it is owned by a large corporation rather than a government is immaterial.
I also think the power Google of today wields over my life is probably comparable to the power the government of 1789 wielded over its citizens.
Is it really wise to so readily accept arbitrary behavior from Google just because they're a private company? At a certain point, companies become big and powerful enough that I think it's reasonable to hold them to similar standards as governments.
I also think the power Google of today wields over my life is probably comparable to the power the government of 1789 wielded over its citizens.
Is it really wise to so readily accept arbitrary behavior from Google just because they're a private company? At a certain point, companies become big and powerful enough that I think it's reasonable to hold them to similar standards as governments.
You thinking YouTube is a public space doesn't make it so, even if you put is in italics.
YouTube is a company. It has employees, a business model, and a TOS. It decides what is acceptable content. You are free to patronize another video site if you don't like it.
In the 90s, if you argued your local mall was a public space because a lot of people spent time there and that's where the conversation was happening, you would be just as wrong.
YouTube is a company. It has employees, a business model, and a TOS. It decides what is acceptable content. You are free to patronize another video site if you don't like it.
In the 90s, if you argued your local mall was a public space because a lot of people spent time there and that's where the conversation was happening, you would be just as wrong.
In a certain sense, a mall is a public space, though. Meaning, you can't exclude people simply because they belong to a protected class. A privately-owned mall is very different from a privately-owned home or club in that regard.
I don't see why you could exclude people from a private club due to their protected class either. Homes are not businesses. This isn't convincing.
Are you disputing whether they should be allowed according to our current laws, or whether they actually exist? There are plenty of women-only or men-only or black-only or Jewish-only or Chinese-only or ... etc. private clubs/organizations. For example Augusta National Golf Club only recently admitted women, and solely due to public pressure / protest; not due to any legal requirement as far as I know.
Whether they should. I'm absolutely sure there exist organizations that break the law exist (sidestepping the issue of whether or not this does break the law).
Actually, some US states (including California, Massachusetts and Colorado) have concluded that malls are equivalent to public "Main Street" space and must be open venues for public speech. This notion is disputed elsewhere. See https://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/12/22/protests-first-amen...
Too bad malls are on the decline.
The monster called Alphabet needs to be shaken down by the governments.
Your argument doesn't hold up as long as there are compeditors. When you start needing government or regulator approval and it comes qith strings attached, things change.
[deleted]
Yes. This. So Much Of It.
There should be some kind of line drawn when a service is something people are essentially forced to rely on or is so ubiquitous. "Common carrier" phone companies aren't allowed to selectively censor your use of them, and it seems reasonable that something the likes of Facebook should maybe have to be held to a similar standard when it's so ubiquitous and a major part of modern communication. There are also precedents such as malls not being allowed to limit speech on the premises in California, along with some other states having similar enforcement of certain rights on some kinds of private property.
See Privately-Owned Public Spaces:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space
> Don't tolerate intolerance. Thats not tolerance is spineless.
What does that even mean? You can still have speech you dont agree with, nobody is forcing you to see it.
What does that even mean? You can still have speech you dont agree with, nobody is forcing you to see it.
The real effects of leaving ISIS recruiting videos on youtube is people dying. They actually do succeed in recruiting people and those people do bad things. Shouldn't this be stopped?
So do you agree that US military videos should be taken off of Youtube as well? The real effect is that some people do indeed die after joining.
That is really a trollish comparison. The US military is under the under the control of a democratically elected government. Even considering that there have been abuses, There is a categorical ethical difference.
The ISIS videos are often calls to violence, showing beheadings and encouraging beheadings. Consider which group intentionally targets civilians, which groups condone vs punish rape, which groups answers to people vs outdated books.
Either way its not my choice, its Google's choice. Oh and the law has some say, calls incite to violence are not protected under even the first amendment. Google has to remove at least some of these because they are illegally asking for violence and people. This law has just been selectively enforced because that is how strong the First Amendment is. It is so strong it protects even more speech in more places than was intended.
The ISIS videos are often calls to violence, showing beheadings and encouraging beheadings. Consider which group intentionally targets civilians, which groups condone vs punish rape, which groups answers to people vs outdated books.
Either way its not my choice, its Google's choice. Oh and the law has some say, calls incite to violence are not protected under even the first amendment. Google has to remove at least some of these because they are illegally asking for violence and people. This law has just been selectively enforced because that is how strong the First Amendment is. It is so strong it protects even more speech in more places than was intended.
I don't consider this trollish at all, I'm legitimately asking. Just because you don't like that your argument can be flipped around doesn't change anything.
> Consider which group intentionally targets civilians, which groups condone vs punish rape, which groups answers to people vs outdated books.
I do consider that and I can't defend America in this case. We have historically targeted civilians, condoned rape, and definitely answer to a book that I strongly consider outdated.
This is the problem that I have with censorship: It usually ends up being OK if the "good guys" do it, but we can't let "them" do the same thing, or people might listen to them!
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.
> Consider which group intentionally targets civilians, which groups condone vs punish rape, which groups answers to people vs outdated books.
I do consider that and I can't defend America in this case. We have historically targeted civilians, condoned rape, and definitely answer to a book that I strongly consider outdated.
This is the problem that I have with censorship: It usually ends up being OK if the "good guys" do it, but we can't let "them" do the same thing, or people might listen to them!
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.
The argument cannot be flipped and that is why I called it trollish. There is no hypocrisy.
The US military does not post beheading videos, or any of the rebuttals I pposted easlier. There are periods were we did bad things, but those are the exception, and we take active effort to fix. the US military has ethics panels and a court system. Can you show me the ISIS court system?
Today the level of scandal is places like gitmo or drone strikes. We have an army of lawyers overseeing both. Waterboarding as inhumane as it is not the condoned rape of 14 year girl every day for 6 months because she was born into the wrong ethnicity.
One side has done wrong things. The other wants to do wrong things. The ethical line is clear.
EDIT- Also thank you for finally bringing up the real issue, the slippery slope.
My rebuttal to that is that what was posted was generally not legal as it was. Speech that incites violences is not protetected in the United States. The government is allowed to silence people doing things like calling for "Death to all Infidels". This isn't censorship this is enforcing laws we have already had for centuries.
The US military does not post beheading videos, or any of the rebuttals I pposted easlier. There are periods were we did bad things, but those are the exception, and we take active effort to fix. the US military has ethics panels and a court system. Can you show me the ISIS court system?
Today the level of scandal is places like gitmo or drone strikes. We have an army of lawyers overseeing both. Waterboarding as inhumane as it is not the condoned rape of 14 year girl every day for 6 months because she was born into the wrong ethnicity.
One side has done wrong things. The other wants to do wrong things. The ethical line is clear.
EDIT- Also thank you for finally bringing up the real issue, the slippery slope.
My rebuttal to that is that what was posted was generally not legal as it was. Speech that incites violences is not protetected in the United States. The government is allowed to silence people doing things like calling for "Death to all Infidels". This isn't censorship this is enforcing laws we have already had for centuries.
I'm sorry, but I can't disagree with you more. Your decision to make this an "us vs them" issue seems to be clouding your judgment on who should be able to speak their mind, and who shouldn't. There is a huge amount of hypocrisy here, and if you can't see it, then I'm not sure I can help you.
I wouldn't oppose videos promoting many other militaries, including at the extreme end of the "them" spectrum the Russian military. Because they would follow Youtube rules and US laws. The Russians for whatever their other flaws understand bilateral communication and have the ability to treat people like people. This is something specifically ISIS (and some other extremist groups) cannot do.
Just like the US military the Russians are imperfect but after WWII they didn't promote rape as a benefit of joining their armed services. ISIS today presents the option of raping infidels as a virtue and a reason for potential rapists to join. Russia doesn't promote attacks on unarmed civilians, ISIS does.
This is only us vs them issue I have is difficulty endorsing people who embrace rape, attacks on non-combatants and other embracing of war crimes. No other group that is a world power does this that I am aware of. No group is perfect, but most groups at least make an attempt to punish people who participate in war crimes like this. ISIS promotes these war crimes.
Just like the US military the Russians are imperfect but after WWII they didn't promote rape as a benefit of joining their armed services. ISIS today presents the option of raping infidels as a virtue and a reason for potential rapists to join. Russia doesn't promote attacks on unarmed civilians, ISIS does.
This is only us vs them issue I have is difficulty endorsing people who embrace rape, attacks on non-combatants and other embracing of war crimes. No other group that is a world power does this that I am aware of. No group is perfect, but most groups at least make an attempt to punish people who participate in war crimes like this. ISIS promotes these war crimes.
> The US military is under the under the control of a democratically elected government
Democracy is not an blank check that allows anything. Even some of the worst leaders in History were actually elected through regular, due process. And there is no principle that shows that Democracies don't engage in Mass-Murder of civilians (erm, Dresden? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? And many others)...
Democracy is not an blank check that allows anything. Even some of the worst leaders in History were actually elected through regular, due process. And there is no principle that shows that Democracies don't engage in Mass-Murder of civilians (erm, Dresden? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? And many others)...
> Even some of the worst leaders in History were actually elected through regular, due process.
Hitler, anyone?[0] (sorry Godwin)
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_...
Hitler, anyone?[0] (sorry Godwin)
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_...
Allende is another one, actually elected by a small minority of people because of the voting process. Before the coup by Pinochet, he used Pinochet (then a general) to brutally repress the political opposition in his country.
Clear Whataboutism, If we do nothing but look back we cannot go forward. We understand those were mistakes and we learned from them and we are better now. ISIS is not our ethical equal, they endorse attacks on civilians, not as a means to an end, but as the goal itself. If the infidel is a civilian then it doesn't matter.
We did commit all three of those atrocities you mentioned. We are imperfect. We also did the best we could the time. We have also improved since then and attempt to actively prevent nuclear proliferation. We have developed bombed that can destroy a single building making arms and leave the hospital across the street untouched. Consider the 1991 gulf war. It had the lowest rate of civilian casualties of any war up until then. We have never set out with the goal of killing enemy civilians out of some direct malice, sometimes we did it because we saw an existential and no other choice.
We blew up cities because we thought it was the best way to destroy factories making arms and we mistakenly thought it would scare the enemy into defeat. Our leaders didn't understand the psychology of our enemy. We have never demanded "death of all infidels" or beheaded our enemies and used that in promotional material. ISIS is the ethical equal of a military of any modern world power.
We did commit all three of those atrocities you mentioned. We are imperfect. We also did the best we could the time. We have also improved since then and attempt to actively prevent nuclear proliferation. We have developed bombed that can destroy a single building making arms and leave the hospital across the street untouched. Consider the 1991 gulf war. It had the lowest rate of civilian casualties of any war up until then. We have never set out with the goal of killing enemy civilians out of some direct malice, sometimes we did it because we saw an existential and no other choice.
We blew up cities because we thought it was the best way to destroy factories making arms and we mistakenly thought it would scare the enemy into defeat. Our leaders didn't understand the psychology of our enemy. We have never demanded "death of all infidels" or beheaded our enemies and used that in promotional material. ISIS is the ethical equal of a military of any modern world power.
Although I agree with the whole YouTube deciding what they want on their platform narrative, the argument loses some steam when talking about edge cases. There are a lot of conflicts where the distinction between quelling extremist content and removing anti-establishment rhetoric is a thin one. Once YouTube starts content censorship of any kind, they might quickly find themselves having to pick sides in somewhat grey areas. Making such value judgements and making them consistently becomes a challenge.
I won't tolerate your intolerance towards ISIS. See how it's just a meaningless word game?
It all boils down to the fact that YouTube is Google's service and they can ban anything they want weather any of us like it or not.
I agree, YouTube is well within their rights to ban or remove any content they please. That doesn't mean it isn't a terrible thing for them to do.
Yes, I agree with you that it's within their rights to do so.
The public square has effectively become platforms like YouTube. If I cannot participate in these discussions, my ideology, and perhaps my welfare, will suffer. Giving public speeches in my town is increasingly meaningless, because this is not where discussions take place in the digital age.
The public square has effectively become platforms like YouTube. If I cannot participate in these discussions, my ideology, and perhaps my welfare, will suffer. Giving public speeches in my town is increasingly meaningless, because this is not where discussions take place in the digital age.
But Google is a private company and there are no laws (rightfully) to force them to display your opinions if they don't want to do so. Free speech laws just apply to the government not silencing you, not private companies.
> The public square has effectively become platforms like YouTube.
Then people have willfully given up their rights. Google and the companies they bought and developers they pay made their software services. People own this stuff it is property and the property owners get the say as long as they follow the laws.
One could even argue they have to remove this stuff because much of it is "calls to violence" which are illegal and not protected by the first amendment.
This might sound snide and dismissive, but that is not what I am going for, so I am sorry. You are free to make any service you like and host it. It has literally never been easier. Look at 4chan. The first versions cost nearly nothing to setup and maintain and that is about as free as speech gets. You can have whatever rules you like on your property. You apparently haven't gone through the effort of making a giant video or communication service so you have to play by the rules of the people who own the ones that exist. If you think you shouldn't have to make one to (to enforce your rules) then petition to make one, but that is really asking for trouble in my opinion.
Then people have willfully given up their rights. Google and the companies they bought and developers they pay made their software services. People own this stuff it is property and the property owners get the say as long as they follow the laws.
One could even argue they have to remove this stuff because much of it is "calls to violence" which are illegal and not protected by the first amendment.
This might sound snide and dismissive, but that is not what I am going for, so I am sorry. You are free to make any service you like and host it. It has literally never been easier. Look at 4chan. The first versions cost nearly nothing to setup and maintain and that is about as free as speech gets. You can have whatever rules you like on your property. You apparently haven't gone through the effort of making a giant video or communication service so you have to play by the rules of the people who own the ones that exist. If you think you shouldn't have to make one to (to enforce your rules) then petition to make one, but that is really asking for trouble in my opinion.
With your word game you are siding with bunch of religious extremist who are literally raping and pillaging, is that what you meant? They literally killing and raping people.
How is hindering their recruiting not good? Many of the videos are already illegal even in the USA with first amendment protections. Inciting violence is not legal, and most of these videos do that on some level. And Google/Alphabet don't what that rubbish on their private property, why would they?
I see how it could be a slippery slope, but that is not what anyone here is arguing. Instead people here are literally arguing that Google should host recruitment videos for a group that literally beheads people and uses that to market to people who are probably in need of mental health services instead of recruitment to zealotry.
How is hindering their recruiting not good? Many of the videos are already illegal even in the USA with first amendment protections. Inciting violence is not legal, and most of these videos do that on some level. And Google/Alphabet don't what that rubbish on their private property, why would they?
I see how it could be a slippery slope, but that is not what anyone here is arguing. Instead people here are literally arguing that Google should host recruitment videos for a group that literally beheads people and uses that to market to people who are probably in need of mental health services instead of recruitment to zealotry.
>> With your word game you are siding with bunch of religious extremist who are literally raping and pillaging, is that what you meant? They literally killing and raping people.
Wait, are you talking about the Christian extremists who caused the unrest in Syria and Libya? What about the Christian extremists who started the war in Iraq? Or maybe you're talking about the Hindu extremists in India who committed genocide?
>> I see how it could be a slippery slope, but that is not what anyone here is arguing.
You're right, most of what you seem to be arguing accepts that we've already completely slid down that slope and are now just figuring out where to aim the bullets
Wait, are you talking about the Christian extremists who caused the unrest in Syria and Libya? What about the Christian extremists who started the war in Iraq? Or maybe you're talking about the Hindu extremists in India who committed genocide?
>> I see how it could be a slippery slope, but that is not what anyone here is arguing.
You're right, most of what you seem to be arguing accepts that we've already completely slid down that slope and are now just figuring out where to aim the bullets
"Don't tolerate intolerance."
Sure. Just define "intolerance".
Sure. Just define "intolerance".
I think ISIS is a reasonable start at a definition. The more they want to hurt people the less tolerant they are.
Well, I'd agree with that....but the ultimate problem isn't where a definition starts.
We can stop with what's already illegal. It is not legal to incite violence. Videos demanding that the infidels be killed are not legal. Neither are videos calling for the death of people for any other reason.
Yes, but what's illegal changes.
Consider: during Prohibition here in the U.S., alcohol was illegal. Were a similar situation develop, should discussion of alcohol distilling be illegal? What about where to find a speakeasy? What about simply discussing how wrong a ban on alcohol is?
Consider: during Prohibition here in the U.S., alcohol was illegal. Were a similar situation develop, should discussion of alcohol distilling be illegal? What about where to find a speakeasy? What about simply discussing how wrong a ban on alcohol is?
Youtube have some of the worst comments that I have encountered on the internet. Won't miss this feature if it gets disabled for all videos.
You’re watching the wrong videos
Depends on the video, some comments are surprisingly good.
[deleted]
I wonder how similar automatic censorship would have affected the Spanish civil war.
Could you expand on this point?
One man's Freedom Fighter is another man's terrorist.
[edit: Or for a different point: does this mean that US airfoce reqruitment videos for drone pilots would be censored by Google in Yemen?]
[edit: Or for a different point: does this mean that US airfoce reqruitment videos for drone pilots would be censored by Google in Yemen?]
[deleted]
This really stinks. on the syrian civil war there is very little news out of warzones but that released by Amaq, HTS, or one of many 'terrorist' organizations. And according to the US who is a terrorist, and according to russia is a terrorist is all different. Its sometimes hard to track down old footage of the war because they're all removed form youtube
Evil censorship and PC brainwashing run amok?
or is this really
"An update on our commitment to avoid expensive lawsuits and pesky Internet pitchfork campaigns by appearing to do something about content some people find objectionable"?
I haven't decided yet.
or is this really
"An update on our commitment to avoid expensive lawsuits and pesky Internet pitchfork campaigns by appearing to do something about content some people find objectionable"?
I haven't decided yet.
You know at its most literal—ie terrorism is the use of terror to gain leverage—this would imply fake news is the problem.
This is just pr fluff.
This is just pr fluff.
Isn't it interesting how over time what is considered the "public square" turned from being owned by gov't (free-speech rules) to private industry (no need to uphold free-speech). Sure you can go run to your local city hall and say whats on your mind but no one's going to listen. The internet allowed for widespread dissemination of views/ideas but as time goes on it will be more and more regulated by private companies.
I feel this is going to annoy less people than the monetary change google made. So ISIS and Alt-right types/far right wing, are the only people who will care about this.
And again, it's a Corporation's platform, not ours. Their rules.
If YouTube exercises editorial control over their content, are they then liable? They are no longer acting as a "common carrier".
Meanwhile this has disappeared from the front page of HN despite having a higher score than plenty of other similarly aged posts on the front page
It's no secret that the moderation here disagrees with the consensus formed in these comments. It's definitely odd.
It's no secret that the moderation here disagrees with the consensus formed in these comments. It's definitely odd.
I just opened it from my frontpage.
So did I. Maybe his/her ISP is filtering content on HN's front page. /s
> moderation
I'm not a mod, but I'm pretty sure moderators didn't touch this.
I'm not a mod, but I'm pretty sure moderators didn't touch this.
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.