Google Announces New Measures To Fight Extremist YouTube Videos (cnet.com) 286
An anonymous reader quotes CNET:
YouTube will take new steps to combat extremist- and terrorist-related videos, parent company Google said Sunday. "While we and others have worked for years to identify and remove content that violates our policies, the uncomfortable truth is that we, as an industry, must acknowledge that more needs to be done. Now," Kent Walker, Google's general counsel, said in an op-ed column in the London-based Financial Times.
Here's CNET's summary of the four new measure Google is implementing:
Here's CNET's summary of the four new measure Google is implementing:
- Use "more engineering resources to apply our most advanced machine learning research to train new 'content classifiers' to help us more quickly identify and remove such content."
- Expand YouTube's Trusted Flagger program by adding 50 independent, "expert" non-governmental organizations to the 63 groups already part of it. Google will offer grants to fund the groups.
- Take a "tougher stance on videos that do not clearly violate our policies -- for example, videos that contain inflammatory religious or supremacist content." Such videos will "appear behind a warning" and will not be "monetized, recommended or eligible for comments or user endorsements."
- Expand YouTube's efforts in counter-radicalization. "We are working with Jigsaw to implement the 'redirect method' more broadly. ... This promising approach harnesses the power of targeted online advertising to reach potential Isis recruits, and redirects them towards anti-terrorist videos that can change their minds about joining."
What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. They are Secular Humanist Political commentators and Journalists who report on current events and extremists in the news. They are Agnostic Atheists who are critical of religion, and want to hold Government accountable.
Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
They will be labeled as racist/sexist/homophobic whatever-nazis. When logical argumentation becomes 'hate speech', it's game over for the enlightenment.
Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
They will be labeled as racist/sexist/homophobic whatever-nazis. When logical argumentation becomes 'hate speech', it's game over for the enlightenment.
Or MGTOW or feminist videos? Gun control versus second amendment affecionados. Or Bill Maher, and whoever hates him? A lot of these folk have an intense hatred towards each other. Be it liberal, or conservative.
We live in a world where some folks want a whole lot of speech muzzled, and the pro muzzlers are more than happy to call their antagonists hate speech.
They better have their policies very tightly defined, because it becomes a muzzling of controversy otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that being an ISIS recruitment platform is not a viable business model, I'm not sure what the alternative is. They seem to be trying really hard to avoid getting involved in politics.
The bigger problem they have with censorship is bogus copyright infringement claims and malicious reporting.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that being an ISIS recruitment platform is not a viable business model, I'm not sure what the alternative is. They seem to be trying really hard to avoid getting involved in politics.
The bigger problem they have with censorship is bogus copyright infringement claims and malicious reporting.
It's a big place though, and I've seen a lot of political videos. Young Turks is getting pretty big, Pakman is middling. A lot of Bill Maher, Fox News, Breitbart, and others.
The copyright infringement part is a problem, with some people commenting on other people's videos, and often a Takedown notice gets pitted against fair use doctrine.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, what I mean is that their rules generally try to avoid making any political judgements. It's only stuff like incitement to violence against individuals or groups, or glorification of murder that they are looking to block.
Well, some people were upset that they can't monetize their homophobia etc. but that's not even YouTube, it's the advertisers.
Re: (Score:3)
Young Turks is getting pretty big,
Sponsored by and supported by Google now, so ... yeah... amazing that the genocide deniers in this case are not just ok to stream... ok to support too
These guys literally did not know that the group they named themselves after committed a genocide, and instead of owning up to the mistake, they doubled down and denied that there was a genocide at all. Complete scumbag racists.
Re: (Score:2)
Google wants a muzzling of controversy! Not from political agenda, but simple short-sighted greed: advertisers don't like their ads to appear next to anything controversial.
But, of course, it's the controversy that gets the page views. With no controversy (and no porn), only cat videos will remain, and that's a small portion of YouTube's traffic. It's an idea so stupid only an MBA could have thought of it.
Re: (Score:2)
So, therefore?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's correct. However, in order for broken ideas to die, they must be challenged. In order for that to happen, they must be expressed. People aren't static creatures. They must learn, and, many times, re-learn throughout their lives. Each generation also must have this opportunity or they'll lead us right back into the dark ages again. Youtube's new policy helps set a narrative that favors certain sets of ideas (doctrines) by allowing them continued ad funding and commentary, while effectively silencing others. While google can do what they like with the site, this policy is not good for the user base nor society as a whole.
'Extremism' is a relative term and has nothing to do with correctness. It's just a generic of blasphemy law and 'hate speech' law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All you do when you challenge obviously broken ideas is give them credence, because people tend to think "well, if they're fighting the idea so hard instead of just ignoring it, there must be something there."
Remember the baker that refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple? The couple should have just walked away and said "your loss." Instead, they made a huge stink, and crowdsourcing campaigns raised over $800,000 for the bakery owners - more than enough for them to retire.
As for what's good
Re: (Score:2)
Using censorious tactics also grants them credence. If the critics resort to (ab)use of authority to prevent such expression, it just appears they can't construct a valid criticism. Better to let all the camps have it out so that those on the sidelines can draw their own conclusions.
That example is not really a clash of ideas like what one finds on youtube. It involves actions taken by both sides. Words != actions.
Depends what you mean by society. As individuals, or via the state by proxy? I agree with the
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
When an idea is obviously broken, you will never convince a nut case that it's not true. They are, by definition, acting rationally. In other words, they are delusional. You will never, ever convince them. They must come to that realization themselves. Ignoring their ideas is better than arguing with them for the very reason you gave - they will think that we're working so hard to disprove it that there must be something there. You're just feeding into the delusion.
And no, it's not a win-win. What it prove
Re: (Score:2)
That's absurd. People can study and learn from history. We don't have to re-hash why Nazism is bad every generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Great! We can't have anyone learning from past history!
How will we keep convincing the 'useful idiots' to repeat the same ideological/political/societal mistakes that have always allowed tyranny to take hold down through history, if we leave records of past examples laying around to warn people!? [signed] Current & Future Tyrants, Dictators, and Oligarchs of the World
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
There's a huge difference between teaching facts from past history and perpetrating bs. Imagine how much better we'd be off if the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran had been consigned to the rust bucket of history. People would be discussing facts, not dogma.
If studying these texts was relegated to an understanding of the period THAT would inoculate people from stupid ideas by showing the harm they did, and how much better off society became when they were abandoned.
Instead we have the Taliban, the Christia
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, rant all you want, the only way you will eliminate religion is to eliminate humanity. Seeking an understanding of "why" for life, the universe, and everything through religion is an integral part of human nature. You may as well aim your rant at human emotions. They are more at the root of mankind's problems than a belief in a Creator, and have about an equal chance of being eliminated without eliminating humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Expressing broken ideas does not help them die, nor is it related to challenging them. That is merely resurrecting them, instead of putting them in the grave they deserve.
Exposing each generation to the bad ideas of the past will lead us right back into the dark ages, as they inevitably fail to learn the lessons. Sadly, there just doesn't seem to be any kind of memetic immunity that is passed down through inheritance.
Not reliably anyway.
Ideas often come from within. They can never truly be buried forever.
If such ideas are truly broken then it should be simple for a society's elders to debunk them. Most who challenge them will eventually understand why they're wrong and will learn the lesson as they should. It is true that humans are poor at reliability and that not every student will learn the lesson, but this is still better than brutally repressing expression that is deemed untrue by some Ministry of Truth. That just invalidates the legi
Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. (Score:4, Insightful)
We live in a world where we have gay marriage, but the reason is "the writers of the constitution protected it". Where Heller was a 5-4 decision, with 4 of the judges willing to assume that the 2nd amendment has no legal meaning whatsoever. A world where the plain language that allows the president to block entry to groups of people is ignored because of the assumption that the president is a racist- despite the fact that being a racist isn't illegal.
Regardless of your political position, you have to recognize that this attempt to change the laws via the courts instead of legislation is frightening. And if you look around, you'll see that logic being applied all throughout the left- they've divided groups into "people of color" and "non-people of color" (whites), and also claim that *there's no such thing as being white*. Denying the existence of a group is not a good first step towards relations! The same groups allow "no whites allowed" ceremonies and days, all without using the word "white" (which again, they don't believe exists).
Given that this is upsetting to almost all Americans, who were raised believing that race doesn't matter (or at least shouldn't ever matter legally, in employment, etc.) and everyone is equal (at the VERY least under the law), it is very convenient for this same faction to shut down debate by calling everyone who disagrees with them racist- going as far as trying to redefine racism so it can't be applied to white people (who don't exist, except when we make regulations against them).
So yes, this will be used to shut down totally conservative videos. It will be used to shut down content from people who are on a blacklist. It will be used to censor heavily, and it will be used much more preferentially against conservatives in the west than Islamist propaganda videos and other recruitment materials, as eager SJW types line up to fight the group that they have been whipped into a frenzy against.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Being a racist isn't illegal. Acting on those beliefs to deny people their rights is.
If some people aren't happy with being kicked out, they're certainly free to start their own site. Te first amendment only applies to government censorship. It doesn't mean others can't arbitrarily censor you. Free speech also means that platforms are free to reject whatever they want, whether it's terrorist videos or bronies.
Also, there are plenty of white groups that are recognized as being discriminated against. Includ
So based on your logic. (Score:2, Insightful)
If a minority male asks a White man for sex, and the White refuses because the former is a minority, the White is criminally guilty of racism and gay bigotry? Because that's what the end game to all this is.
Re:So based on your logic. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
"Discrimination" is a normal word, mean roughly to choose according to some criteria. Discrimination about one's sexual partner is the most fundamental (and important, in the long term) kind of discrimination. And, BTW, almost everyone discriminates based n race when it comes to sexual partner.
There is nowhere any law that says you must accept sex from any person.
Yet, but it sure seems to be where we're headed. How long till it's a hate crime to refuse sex when you discover that woman you've been dating has a penis?
Heck, we've seen a case under the rules at university where
Re: (Score:2)
AC is for shitposting. If you want to discuss something, log in.
Re: (Score:2)
Idiot troll wrote:
...gays are now accusing straight people of homophobia for the simple matter of them being straight and not wanting to engage in relations with the same sex? That's right, if a guy refuses to suck off another guy, he's labeled as a bigot.
Quit making shit up.
Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. (Score:4, Informative)
you have to recognize that this attempt to change the laws via the courts instead of legislation is frightening
It's the last line of defence against unconstitutional laws. That's the very reason you have a constitution. If there is no judiciary to check and limit the powers of the legislature, you live in a dictatorship.
A world where the plain language that allows the president to block entry to groups of people is ignored because of the assumption that the president is a racist- despite the fact that being a racist isn't illegal.
Read the court decisions. The constitution protects individuals from persecution based on their religion and certain other attributes. The people who wrote it were aware that their ancestors fled Europe because of religious persecution. And before you claim that it's not a Muslim ban, the courts cited Trump's own speeches and tweets stating that it was a Muslim ban.
He's like those stupid villains in comic books who can't resist telling everyone their diabolical plan, and then can't understand why it was thwarted.
Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. (Score:4, Informative)
Regardless of what POTUS said, it wasn't a muslim ban. There are plenty of countries where the religion is dominant that were not placed on the list. POTUS has the right by law to stop people from entering the country if there's reasonable belief that they intend to do harm. Why is it that it was okay when Obama did it, but not with the new guy? Hmm?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Oh... thats not what you were getting at? Too bad, they are bigots due to the duck rule. Looks like a bigot. Acts like a bigot. Must be a bigot.
Re: (Score:3)
I like that - "Agnostic Atheist". It's someone who doesn't believe in God but doesn't want to be lumped in with douchenozzles like Richard Dawkins. Basically, it's "I don't know if there's a god, but prolly not, but just in case, you never know."
What about them? I don't see how these Google measures are going to affect them.
Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
An atheist is someone who does not have a belief in deities. It offers no justification. An agnostic atheist does not believe due to lack of evidence. This has nothing to do with Dawkins except that he probably is one.
Dawkins rightfully criticizes islam for its intolerant doctrines, esp towards women, gays, and non-believers. This should not surprise you as he has always been quite vocal and critical towards irrational belief systems. The funny thing is, if this was prior to ~2004, you'd probably be on board with him. At some point, the left will have to deal with this schizophrenic conflict between what used to be called 'liberal values' and islam. I just hope it's not at the expense of the former.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not as hard as you think, and it's not a schizophrenic conflict. It's garden variety human hatred. There's Islam, and then there's the hateful cult that justifies itself in its name. Just as there's Christianity, and then there's the hateful cult that justifies itself in its name. Hateful atheists will just find other ways to justify themselves.
As a one-time seminar
Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like a no true scotsman fallacy. Who decides what is 'abuse' of 'sacred' texts when the whole premise is based on faith and subjective interpretation? This applies to any religion, not just islam. From the perspective of islamic fundamentalists, the watered down 'moderate' interpretation you defend is blasphemy (or perhaps 'hate speech' towards allah and mohammed if you like). The fact this whole conflict is based on fantastical, improvable beliefs is why religion receives criticism in the first place.
Dawkins criticizes the whole religious 'stack', not just islam. He just ran into trouble with progressives because they had placed muslims on the protected caste list and he refused to give the religion a free pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not as hard as you think, and it's not a schizophrenic conflict. It's garden variety human hatred. There's Islam, and then there's the hateful cult that justifies itself in its name.
Damn big cult, seeing as more than 2/3 of the Islamic population support Sharia Law [pewresearch.org] ...
Stoning gays for being gay. How very progressive.
The problem is you are working under the mistaken belief that the Islamic regressives are a small minority of the Islamic population. They are not. They are the clear majority.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The "Left", as you call it, or as I call it: people with fucking decency, disowned Dawkins because he used Islamophobia to chastise Western women to shut up about sexism and misogyny. That makes him a sexist asshole. And depending on how much he conflates Islam with 'looking Arabic' possibly a racist asshole too.
I am very sorry for you, but reality is not obliged to defer to your feelings, snowflake.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the humanity! Not the upvotes!
Re: (Score:2)
Upvotes determine visibility. New people with controversial opinions won't be "discoverable" on YouTube. The existing crowd can probably get by with Patreon etc, but what about the next generation. Well, they won't be on YouTube, that's for sure.
Also, the chilling effect can be seen in a lot of the non-political YT channels I watch. They're walking on eggshells, trying to guess what might get them banned. "Uh-oh, I talked about weapons, will that be a strike against me?"
Re: (Score:2)
It's not YouTube's job to make controversial opinions "discoverable".
Sure it is, it's both their moral duty and their duty to their stockholders (since "controversial" is another word for "clickbait").
For most of the world, that "walking on eggshells" you're talking about is known as "not being an asshole".
Way to entirely miss the point. Or maybe you think giving advice on how to make combat in a D&D session or interesting makes one an asshole? Maybe a review of replica Roman armor? I dunno with you, Ratzo. But anything that, taken out of context, might not be seen as family friendly has the channels I watch spooked right now.
Re: (Score:2)
If "controversial" means "clickbait", then they shouldn't need YouTube. Use a different video hosting service.
Youtube is not a public utility. If you want to make an argument for the nationalization of Google (and resulting government regulation) or you want to talk about boycotting Youtube entirely, then we have something to discuss. You saying that Youtube has some "moral
Re: (Score:3)
Youtube is not a public utility
It's close, though. Because of the network effect, it gets almost all the eyeballs. I'd love for something non-Google to emerge as a serious conpetitor, but it's an imperfect world.
You saying that Youtube has some "moral duty" to host videos with "controversial" themes
Yup, still saying that. They're big enough that they need to be as neutral as possible, host content as broadly as possible. It's only through discussion of controversial ideas that needless political violence is averted. And that's a moral duty.
we can talk about banks "moral duty" to have reasonable interest rates on credit cards
The interest rates that banks are allowed to charge in the US is in fact capped
Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. (Score:4, Informative)
That's just not true. One of the places where "controversial ideas" were most freely and openly discussed was 1929 Weimar Germany. Spoiler alert: It didn't end well for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. Humans only have 2 methods of conflict resolution: discussion, and violence. Pick one.
If you're afraid your ideas will lose in the marketplace of ideas, come up with better arguments! If you think you're the only one smart enough to see the truth, while those peasants are just so dumb they can't see why their ideas are wrong, stop being an arrogant prick!
To quote the sage Jimmy Buffet: "Don't ever forget that you just may wind up being wrong."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. (Score:5, Informative)
Of course it will. But it won't include left wing white radicalized communist groups. So don't worry, you can keep enjoying the antifa, bamn, alf, elf, sea shepard, and all those other violent extremist groups telling people to assault those who don't follow their political ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
So we can safely assume that you will be in charge of the ban policy?
A pro-speech conservative libertarian is a bad choice for a job like that. I'd just let everyone spew their shit and let the public make their own choice on it.
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes I wonder how much effort you people put in to digging up these extremists. I'm progressive, I donate money to progressive political candidates and vote for progressives, I support progressive causes. I've never heard of any of those groups.
I don't. Every single one of those groups has been mentioned multiple times in the media in the last 5 years. Some have even been directly linked to other organizations which don't have a "violent" face. An example: ALF(Animal Liberation Front), has received direct and multiple payments from PETA. Individual actors in ALF, have as well -- before and after they commit attacks against people. Groups like sea shepard and so on have been around since the late 1970's and have a history of violence. If you
Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, by liberal Silicon Valley rules, it will work like this:
If they criticize Christianity, then it's free speech
If they criticize Islam, then it's racism and hate speech.
Re: (Score:3)
They are specifically taking about tackling videos that demonise Christians, in order to radicalize people against them. Islamists like to portray their struggle as a holy war.
Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. (Score:4, Informative)
Well, by liberal Silicon Valley rules, it will work like this:
If they criticize Christianity, then it's free speech
If they criticize Islam, then it's racism and hate speech.
Why does the far left interpret disagreement as hate?
I don't think gay marriage is a good thing for society: but I don't hate gay people who hold that opinion?
Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. (Score:5, Funny)
You got that completely wrong, it's not criticism of Christianity that is seen as hate speech by the left, it's extremist hate speech that is hate speech.
Your confusion is from the fact that right wingers seem to lump all muslims into a homogeneous group and ties them with extremists, when they are not one group, but hundreds of smaller groups, in the same way Christian sects are splintered among progressive and conservative sects, including groups that advocate violence.
Progressives just label the terrorist like elements of both as terrorist, both Christian and Muslim (and other religions / groups).
Last I heard they had their ads back (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you already forget the recent "pewdiepie is a nazi" debacle?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So, if I think there may be some truth to the theory that our universe is a simulation, and take it a step further to say we're some super-advanced civilization's version of The Sims - are the players not effectively equal to gods?
'Atheist' is the closest descriptor you have to 'I believe in science', being convinced the truth lies with the big bang, evolution etc. - yet the agnostic can't rule out some kind of higher power that may nudge things in specific directions without getting as involved as gods ten
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except your theory that we're just a simulation has zero science behind it
It's just logic. The argument goes like this: There appears to be no reason that a universe could not be simulated to an arbitrary level of detail. In an infinite universe, everything than can be done will be done, so a universe will eventually be simulated. Moreover, we have already created numerous incredibly crude simulators, and we're clearly going to make better ones, so eventually we will simulate a universe.
Next, observe that precisely the same logic applies inside a simulated universe. So any simu
Re: (Score:2)
Logic has been used to prove lots of things, like bees not being able to fly. That heavier things fall faster. That the earth is the center of the universe.
Proof is what counts. A theory that is not possible to be tested is worse than useless - it's a diversion, a waste of time.
BTW - it's not possible. There is absolutely no evidence, and it is the person who makes the extraordinary claim who has the burden of proof. What you have is an unsupported belief - same as any other religious belief.
Re: (Score:2)
Logic has been used to prove lots of things, like bees not being able to fly.
Only because the logic has been based on erroneous assumptions. The thing about this particular argument is that it contains very few assumptions. Which ones would you challenge?
Proof is what counts.
No theory can be proven. Only disproven.
A theory that is not possible to be tested is worse than useless - it's a diversion, a waste of time.
It's not entirely certain that this theory cannot be tested. It's not obvious that it can, but that doesn't mean it cannot. Also, humans engage in lots of diversions, and waste a lot of time. I'll bet you do, too. Why is this diversion bad, and yours good?
BTW - it's not possible
That's an extraordinary claim, as clai
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but stating that there absolutely is no god without any quantifiable evidence to back that statement up is "taking such things on faith". God isn't testable and so has nothing to do with science. Totally orthogonal concepts.
Re: (Score:2)
'Atheist' is the closest descriptor you have to 'I believe in science', being convinced the truth lies with the big bang, evolution etc. - yet the agnostic can't rule out some kind of higher power that may nudge things in specific directions without getting as involved as gods tend to do in established religions. They don't necessarily invalidate each other.
Unless there is repeatable, quantifiable evidence that god does not exist. atheism is just as unscientific as theism. Since metaphysics, by definition, is distinct from the observable universe, atheism requires you to base your beliefs on faith just as much as theism does. Suspension of belief until evidence is found is the most rational approach, but expecting evidence of the metaphysical to actually be found isn't very rational. Replacing that old time religion with a goofy science-as-religion where you "
Re: (Score:2)
'Atheist' is the closest descriptor you have to 'I believe in science',
That's a very childish view. Science and religion are largely orthogonal. Science makes statements about how the world is, religion makes statements about how to be in the world.
Only if you're a simple-minded literalist do you think the creation stories and whatnot are there as history. Most people understand they're there as archetypical stories about how to live.
You can both believe in the Big Bang, and believe e.g. in the moral lesson of the story of Cain and Abel (if your brother is sacrificing for
Re: (Score:2)
What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. They are Secular Humanist Political commentators and Journalists who report on current events and extremists in the news. They are Agnostic Atheists who are critical of religion, and want to hold Government accountable.
I fully support their right to post videos on their own website. Youtube is whatever youtube wants it to be and that does not include unrestricted speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every single Atheist and Skeptic channel is going to get flagged and banned under this program.
inflammatory religious or (Score:2)
How about (Score:2)
I'd be happy if they flagged all the shit like the flat-earth videos, the "spirit science" bullshit, and all the rest of the mystical anti-science garbage that pollutes Youtube like a punchbowl full of turds.
complaints already (Score:2)
Ah /. (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty much every comment here is "They'll remove things they shouldn't!" or "They won't remove things they should!"
Maybe we should let them actually do something before deciding if they're doing it wrong or not.
Personally I'd rather err on the side of removing content that incites violence.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is largely due to the recent "Ad Apocalypse" where a large number of channels lost they're ad's and funding.
China Uncensored is one example, video's being taken down because some random word that's a part of a video game title is another, then there's all the dmca take downs that are very hard to appeal against.
Say something someone doesn't like and suddenly it's considered "hate speech"
The right to free speech also means the right to be offended and that's the problem, a lot of it is subjectiv
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is largely due to the recent "Ad Apocalypse" where a large number of channels lost they're ad's and funding.
China Uncensored is one example, video's being taken down because some random word that's a part of a video game title is another, then there's all the dmca take downs that are very hard to appeal against.
You seem to be talking about two different things as though they're one.
DMCA takedowns apply to material that is alleged to infringe someone's copyrights. When an online provider receives a takedown, they are legally obliged to take the content down. DMCA takedowns aren't at all hard to "appeal against"; you just file a counter-notice and the material goes back up. Then, if you actually infringed their copyrights, the owner of the material sues you. They can do this because in the counter-notice you have
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube are just reacting to the demands of advertisers. Advertisers are very protective of their brand associations - they don't want their ad appearing right before someone launches off on a profanity-laden rant, or be seen implicitly endorsing a very fringe political view by advertising next to it.
Who determines what is extremist? (Score:2, Insightful)
Who determines what extremism is?
Kathy Griffith's "beheading" of Trump anyone?
How about that Broadway play that depicts assassination of the President in the manner of Julius Caesar?
What about those on the left that call for killing all republicans or all conservatives?
Will Google and the other companies stop those videos?
When does this enter into the area of preventing free speech?
Don't censor at all, and if you feel you have to censor, then make sure you censor EVERYONE, thus ensuring the demise of your p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Flagged. (Score:4, Informative)
The worst common offending extremist videos are youtube approved sponsors, and they get pushed to the trending page.
The Young Turks has videos calling out for death for conservatives and Trump, with extreme foul language, that would never pass for FCC standards. And youtube puts them on the trending page all the time.
If TYT can call for the death of people, and yet still be approved because its leftist shock journalism, their 63 current content groups are just political groups censoring conservatives.
Other conservative FCC quality videos that actually AIR ON THE RADIO are removed, blocked, and censored because of these 63 and youtube censors.
Everyone knows whats going on, lets not even try to pretend that google doesn't have an agenda to fight conservatism.
Re: (Score:3)
Where is a link to one of their videos calling for the death of someone? I don't watch their channel but every few months a single video from them will show up as recommended. While they are pretty strange I have not seen them call for someone to be killed.
Overall I hate this whole right vs left thing because I think ideas get classified as one or another and then discarded on that basis instead of sitting down and having a rational discussion. Sometimes the right is correct, something the left is correct,
Money v reputation v terrorism v free speech (Score:2)
Not really hoping for any funny comments, but there is great room for insight on this topic, and I wasn't able to detect much based on such mods or my keyword searches. Unfortunately, I feel lacking in motivation on behalf of what is left of Slashdot. I thought I had a couple of minutes to spare, but the pending task was completed so my time priorities have been rearranged and I should leave soon. So...
The analysis of the "Comment Subject:" is entirely intuitively obvious starting from the sig below, but in
Does it involve "arresting extremists"? (Score:2)
Does it involve "arresting extremists"?
I understand you are not allowed access to computers in jail. Kind of makes it hard to create a throw-away account and post an extremist video.
By the way, where are all these extremists coming from; is there a factory somewhere? Maybe we can just shut that down...
What about the army? (Score:2)
Will they censor videos supporting the military invasion of other countries? Will they censor videos supporting groups of proud people who make night raids and murder entire villages? Inciting people to join them?
Isn't the murder of thousands extremist?
I'm waiting to see what these "super flaggers" think.
extremist- and terrorist-related = ... (Score:3)
Extremist- and terrorist-related = non-Marxist videos. Basically anything not mainstream or TYT is included.
Re: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program" (Score:3, Insightful)
Extremist videos==oliticaly Incorrect Videos, in disagreement with extreme left wing progressivist Mafia
Re: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not political. Flagging videos you disagree with is a tactic used by all factions, regardless of politics. There's been a lot of upset in the youtube atheist community lately over videos being taken down and at least one channel being closed due to a mass-flagging campaign organised by a Muslim organisation who are trying to rid the site of blasphemy.
Re: (Score:2)
So they're doing it to spite the extremist mafia?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This means no conservative pundits Muslims beheading is ok but anyone getting even close to the truth about the left and career politicians DAS IST VERBOTEN!!!
Re:"YouTube's Trusted Flagger program" (Score:5, Insightful)
Pay them a bounty. You'll get a lot more participation. And if they don't keep their "correctly identified" ratio high enough, they get dumped. Money talks.
We've seen it work with everything from rewards for reporting crime to bug bounties.
But it will be to hard to police!" Seriously? That's not an excuse. You're supposed to be so good at AI - have AI look for patterns of abuse of the bounty system. Or is it time to admit that your "targeted ads platform" isn't all that capable after years of work, showing people ads for stuff they already bought, etc? Same problem as Amazon?
Re:"YouTube's Trusted Flagger program" (Score:5, Insightful)
Talks on the history of a communist party or its leadership? Banned.
Book reviews by authors that SJW don't like? Banned?
Re: (Score:3)
The slope will get more slippery when the account won't be able to upload and search results will not find the page.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually funny how /. reports on censorship when they have their own censorship is implemented. Say one bad thing about Linux and your karma is reduced to bad.
That's not slashdot - that's the users.
Re: (Score:3)
On the contrary.. Those will be promoted as fine examples of tolerance and diversity. Videos which criticize this or the bases they operate on will be flagged as 'extremist', have their monetization revoked, and comments disabled.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary.. Those will be promoted as fine examples of tolerance and diversity. Videos which criticize this or the bases they operate on will be flagged as 'extremist', have their monetization revoked, and comments disabled.
How are you folks dealing with the mortal sin of non sexualized portable-potties at football games and other events?
It never bothered me because I simply do not equate urination or defecation as sexual. Just something you do because you are alive. I know there's rule 34, but there's gotta be a lot of projection going on here with the outraged.
Re: SJW extremists, beware! (Score:2, Insightful)
I look at it as simple as this: the man sign means the washroom is set up to accommodate people with penises (e.g. urinals). The woman sign means the bathroom is set up to accomodate people with vaginas (e.g. sanitary napkin disposal). Pictures of vaginas and penises are not used because of Victorian prudishness. Plus 20 years ago people were more intelligent and didn't need which of the signs has a penis and which one has a vagina pointed out to them.
If neither sign is on the door the bathroom is probab
Re: SJW extremists, beware! (Score:4, Funny)
Why, in 2017, I have to point out something as simple as this that my 7 year old understands to adults I don't know.
Why? You are compelled to because you're a homophobic, racist, white-privileged, bigoted, Christian-moral-extremist hatemonger, intent on achieving your goal of a radical US Christian Theocracy, as your post proves by questioning what the authorities on genders decree from their public taxpayer-funded, tenure-protected, university gender-studies department positions. /s
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Why? You are compelled to because you're a homophobic, racist, white-privileged, bigoted, Christian-moral-extremist hatemonger, intent on achieving your goal of a radical US Christian Theocracy, as your post proves by questioning what the authorities on genders decree from their public taxpayer-funded, tenure-protected, university gender-studies department positions. /s
Strat
I can't stand the Gender studies crowd either, but people who have an issue with women's monthly cycle and the products they use to deal with it are pretty darn 1930's.
It's like so awful, I'll tell you what.. I've been to events where the person using the porta Potty before or after me have been women. We say hi as we pass each other, and don't even have a second thought. It doesn't make you a SJW to not see rest rooms as a place to hook up.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't stand the Gender studies crowd either, but people who have an issue with women's monthly cycle and the products they use to deal with it are pretty darn 1930's.
It's like so awful, I'll tell you what.. I've been to events where the person using the porta Potty before or after me have been women. We say hi as we pass each other, and don't even have a second thought. It doesn't make you a SJW to not see rest rooms as a place to hook up.
Porta-pottys are, by their nature and design, universal single-occupancy units. If some company wants to equip their units with tampon and rubber dispensers, I don't care. Being single-occupancy, sex of the user is irrelevant.
I have no problem with whatever sex someone believes they are, whether their lovers have different or the same bits, where they stick the bits, or anything else unless it causes harm. Different strokes for different folks, as we said back in the '60s/'70s. That's because I have respect
Re: (Score:2)
Lest you be menstruating and find nowhere to place your used tampon.
Why, in 2017, I have to point out something as simple as this that my 7 year old understands to adults I don't know.
Eeeeeeeewwwww Using the same facility where a woman who is menstruating has been in. Oh the horrors! Oh my god, man, You are creeping me out.
Did you know that women actually fart too?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You tell me. How long until feminists decide that women are 'at risk' sharing bathrooms with men? What happens then?
There's no winning with such unreasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
You tell me. How long until feminists decide that women are 'at risk' sharing bathrooms with men? What happens then?
There's no winning with such unreasoning.
Dunno. They could told to move ot North Carolina?
Re: (Score:2)
Google is coming for your transgender bathroom videos.
How is that SJW extremism? They're also coming for your cisgender bathroom videos. Dog whistle much?
They arrested the guy running the #CanadaCreep twitter account, laid some initial charges, and as the investigation expanded, re-arrested him and laid more charges.
One of my former bosses now owes me big time. Every guy was arguing in favour of making a web site that published "up-skirt" pictures, arguing that "it's not really porn." Turns out that voyeurism is a criminal offense, and so is publishing prur
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the tourist ads, the funding for US movies by nations with communist parties.
Their ads and movies trailers/reviews get special consideration by SJW.
No history, no politics, no human rights comments, no mention of was, no blasphemy, no reviews of some authors, no negative reviews about big brand movies, scripts.