Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Youtube Communications Google Media Network Networking Technology

YouTube Will Now Redirect Searches For Extremist Videos To Anti-Terrorist Playlists (tubefilter.com) 136

YouTube will return anti-terrorist playlists when users search for hateful content on the site using certain keywords pertaining to terrorism. Tubefilter.com reports: The new feature, dubbed The Redirect Method, is part of a four-prong strategy announced by Google last month to quash extremist ideologies across its platforms. The Redirect Method was developed by Jigsaw -- an Alphabet subsidiary whose mission is to counter extremism, censorship, and cyber attacks -- alongside another tech company called Moonshot CVE (which stands for "Countering Violent Extremism"). Jigsaw and Moonshot CVE developed the tech after studying, over several years, how terrorist factions like ISIS leverage technology to spread their messaging and recruit new followers. In coming weeks, YouTube says it intends to incorporate The Redirect Method into a wider set of search queries in languages beyond English, use machine learning to dynamically update search terms, work with partner NGOs to develop new anti-extremist content, and roll out the Method to Europe.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Will Now Redirect Searches For Extremist Videos To Anti-Terrorist Playlists

Comments Filter:
  • To actually let the populace have.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Free speech is a protected right, that doesn't mean that a company has to promote or distribute others ideologies.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Why don't they just remove the videos then instead of messing up the search results.

      • by gatfirls ( 1315141 ) on Thursday July 20, 2017 @07:16PM (#54849653)

        When they are redirecting, they are promoting and/or distributing others ideologies.

        I get that they are a company and can do as they want with their platform but I am sure how you can see their intervention like this being used for not so warm and fuzzy things. Let's say something like they want some bill to get passed so they direct searches to only videos promoting the bill.

        Not a fan of when companies get in the 'arbiters of free speech' business. It's either within your TOS or it isn't. You're either responsible for all content or none.

        'Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful.' -Charles Bradlaugh

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Not a fan of when companies get in the 'arbiters of free speech' business. It's either within your TOS or it isn't. You're either responsible for all content or none.

          Legally they can be responsible only for removing content when it is flagged up to them, but in practice there is commercial pressure to actively look for it from advertisers.

          'Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful.' -Charles Bradlaugh

          Agreed, but expecting commercial services like YouTube to be an absolute free speech venue is not realistic.

        • by Maritz ( 1829006 )
          Your speech is still free. Start your own YouTube and stop fucking whining.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Free speech does not always refer to the protection from government censorship. Free speech in regards to youtube means that google will not censor you. Google does not support free speech on its platform.

      • The problem is that Youtube does not promote itself as a TV station, it promotes itself as a community. When Youtube, or Google as a whole, start manipulating search results so that they always celebrate a certain ideology and demonize another it is at the very least false advertising, and threatens our democracy.

        Google is for all intents and purposes a common carrier, it serves as our community hall, mail system, our news papers, and so much more. Why should Google not be allowed to push polities into its

        • by Maritz ( 1829006 )

          Google is for all intents and purposes a common carrier, it serves as our community hall, mail system, our news papers, and so much more. Why should Google not be allowed to push polities into its search results, because the mailman should not be censuring and modifying my letters.

          Nope. Vimeo. Dailymotion. ZippCast. Twitch. YouTube is a private platform and they can decide whatever the fuck they like regarding what happens on it. Don't like it? Leave.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      While you are free to say that, this has nothing to do with free speach rights.

    • by Maritz ( 1829006 )
      Free speech refers to government censorship. YouTube aren't the government. You'd think someone with a functioning brain could make that distinction.
    • Well played
  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's so great to see the thought police are out in full force.

    • by Maritz ( 1829006 )

      It's so great to see the thought police are out in full force.

      Not as great as seeing how annoyed you are about it. Twats who think they get to say whatever they want, on whoever's private platform they want, deserve to be made miserable when reality bites. Cry censorship all you want.

  • I look forward to the next "Reefer Madness" of anti-Jihadi content!

    Someone may as well enjoy it as they'll just link directly to videos from elsewhere...

    • Reefer Madness was mildly amusing because of how ridiculously wrong parts of it were. When discussing Jihad, there's no need to make stuff up. (I mean, people do anyway - "Sharia law being implemented in 22 US states" etc. - but it's not strictly necessary, and the effect is far less amusing.)
      • I think you lack imagination as to hough laughably wrong anti-jihad video makers are going to get addressing the reasons people become radicalized. I know the Jihadis will certainly be laughing.

      • That's not true, there are plenty of made up things in how it is portrayed. For example, the notion that anyone is beinh radicalized over the internet. Everyone uses Syed Farook's wife as an example even though claims of her radicalization online were a hoax. The idea that internet companies could do more than fuckall about any of this aside from cover their own asses is perhaps the biggest forgery about it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 20, 2017 @06:55PM (#54849523)

    Is a video against socialized health care hateful? Is a video exposing the dangers of communism hateful? Is a video against men using women's bathrooms hateful?

    Thanks to the kind overlords at youtube, they'll just let us know so we don't have to think for ourselves.

  • by uCallHimDrJ0NES ( 2546640 ) on Thursday July 20, 2017 @07:00PM (#54849557)

    It's a free and open Internet, right? So, we should all be able to use any of our own streaming video sites that allow users to post content and share with others and put the onus for the content on the users! Right? Let's just do that. Which other platform should we use? Google doesn't have some special rights that we humans don't have, so this should be easy.

    • by Maritz ( 1829006 )
      The impression I get from these comments is that Youtube has been enshrined by governance as the only place on the internet where videos can be posted. Pretty fucked up, isn't it?
  • by rey2 ( 4925673 ) on Thursday July 20, 2017 @07:17PM (#54849667)
    I definitely don't support terrorist/extremist videos that show murder, violence, terrorism, etc, but this says "hateful" content, that's such a loaded word. As a religious person I worry about the time Google and their employees decide that the very words or ideas from my religious text are "hateful". Not good not good at all.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 20, 2017 @07:33PM (#54849747)

      If you're a Christian who disagrees with homosexual marriage then you're evil.
      If you're an Islam who wants to stone a wife of an adulterer to death then you're just expressing your culture.

      • Nah, both are evil, the Christian is just using a mostly made up Islamophilia as an excuse for his shitty behaviour.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      You mean hateful words like the following...?

      "Whoever does any work on [the Sabbath] must be put to death."

      "... in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."

      "Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished."

      "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but sa

      • by OYAHHH ( 322809 )

        If you are trying to define Christianity you are doing a poor job. I'll help you out. Christianity derives it's name by the fact that it's followers adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

        You will find those teachings in a set of books organized under the title, "The New Testament."

        I think if you actually study the New Testament you will find that Jesus Christ's teachings do not espouse arbitrary hatred towards his fellow man.

        Unfortunately, as noted by someone else, you are for the most part attributing

        • I think if you actually study the New Testament...

          It's the New Testament where Jesus something along the lines of, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." That's Matthew 5:17-18, in case you're wondering.

          If you hang your hat on the New Testament, within that very book Jesus tells you that you've still got the a

      • by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )

        What does any of that have to do with hate?

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      They do need to be really careful, reserving this for only the most blatant material.

      There has been a spate of trolls submitting fake complaints of extremism and spam against videos they don't like (ContraPoints, Shaun & Jen and H.Bomberguy have all been hit that way) and YouTube's appeal process is a joke. In fact it usually only gets reversed when someone messages one of their staff on Twitter.

    • it's their website. To be honest though you'd be hard pressed to find a religious text that didn't have something hateful in it. Most of those texts are thousands of years old and the world was a rough place for a long time (still is in most places). Anyway I don't expect Google to focus on a specific religious text, just the parts that either insight violence or scare off advertisers (let's not forget Youtube's biz model).
    • by crafoo ( 591629 )

      These videos can be very enlightening to the 19 year old SJW-in-training. They need to see what the "religion of peace" openly promotes, and which the "moderate members" condone either openly or through strategic silence.

      hiding the truth is never the right move. We should be seekers of truth through critical thinking and open access to all of the information.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Google and Youtube decide that they don't like it when you search for boobies. Too extreme. Now they are redirecting you to websites featuring kittens and puppies. And before you ask, no, not sweater puppies.

  • As a researcher in this specific area, this is... unhelpful. :(

  • On my work PC, I watched one video by a centipede on Youtube. Not about anything political in fact. But since then, I've been getting white nationalist videos suggested to me. I wondered if it acts similarly for jihadist content.

  • I was shown how many bombs the USA has dropped https://www.youtube.com/result... [youtube.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Right in the article

    The Redirect Method was developed by Jigsaw â" an Alphabet subsidiary whose mission is to counter extremism, censorship, and cyber attacks

    I still wonder if some of these people can stop a bit and start reflecting on what they are doing.

  • by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Thursday July 20, 2017 @08:18PM (#54849923)

    Free speech is good

    Evil speech can be harmful

    Political speech against the party in power can be troublesome in some countries

    The first search should be uncensored. The following ones should include opposing views. Yeah, I know this is hard to do

    • by jbn-o ( 555068 ) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Thursday July 20, 2017 @09:41PM (#54850305) Homepage

      It's easy to say "Evil speech is harmful" but not so easy to put any meaning to that glib statement. Noam Chomsky reminds us that free speech means being very tolerant for views one does not agree with which gives rise to the idea that the fix for whatever one might deem 'bad speech' is more speech: "Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." Niemoller ("First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a Socialist. ... Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.") reminds us to ask how long until one's ideas are deemed "evil", "terroristic", or whatever other language triggers censorship on a particular hosting service.

      In the meantime, it's easy to upload to multiple places (such as archive.org [archive.org]) and host one's videos on one's own server thus avoiding YouTube's censorship altogether. I know this is a difficult tack to take on /.; take one look at any story having to do with proprietary software and see how quickly the posts advocating software freedom for its own sake are downvoted (without comment, of course, due to the structure of /.'s moderation system) while business-friendly (pro-DRM, pro-tinkering at the edges of giving into proprietary control) posts are left alone or upvoted. A far cry from what /. used to be when it began. I imagine different discussion sites have differing ad-hoc effective defintions for what's objectionable. All the more reason to host one's own blog.

  • No hypocrisy here (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 20, 2017 @08:38PM (#54850029)

    "Alphabet subsidiary whose mission is to counter extremism, censorship, and cyber attacks"

    So they plan on countering censorship by censoring?

  • Of course terrorists will be used as an excuse to suppress political speech that they don't like. It wasn't enough to pull the carpet out from under political commentators in the form of ad revenue, to delete popular comments on poignant issues, to manipulate the trending list, and unsubscribing people's choices; they needed to go further to provide some helpful reeducation.

    Youtube has been an incredible platform for free speech, an amazing marketplace of ideas and information, where anyone with a determina

  • Can a society which espouses free speech as a fundamental principle actually survive?

    Or are the jihadists correct that any society which wishes to survive must somehow control its citizens baser natural tendencies?

    Protecting stuff you believe in is easy. Protecting stuff you disagree with is the true litmus test of how strong your principles are. The moment you stop protecting speech you disagree with, you've tacitly admitted that the principle of freedom of expression is a failure. You become a su
  • The SJW will be busy.
    No blasphemy. No cartoons that get people to question their faith or show what a faith is really about.
    No animations with music that allow people to understand the teachings of a cult or faith.
    No questions about Communist party history. No video clips about Communist party leaders.
    No video clips about local news reports on the results of illegal immigration.
    No news on the policy of allowing in a lot of illegal immigrants into a nation.
    No video clips that are negative about a
  • Now apply the Redirect Method to religious content...

  • It won't be waving a flag and carrying a bible, it will be from companies and the government proclaiming their desire to protect all of us from "harmful" ideas.
  • This is not the best way to win a battle of ideas. Neil Gaiman says quite nicely here: http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2015/05/neil-gaiman-credo [newstatesman.com] Now I'm going to start searching youtube trying to get censored. Oh, yeah, and now I won't be able to trust any of google searches either.
  • ...Promise Keepers I wonder where one would end up.
  • by plague911 ( 1292006 ) on Friday July 21, 2017 @10:46AM (#54852463)
    Even with the best intentions.
  • When censors 'attack' extremeism, does that mean Milos Yanniopoulis is de-referenced?
    or does it only apply to brown-skinned men?
    Does it apply to anti-choice zealots demanding armed action? or does it apply only to Atheists denigrating them verbally?
    My bet?
    Christian crazies and Birthers will not be shut down, but breast cancer survivor class-action legal recruitment videos will.

It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.

Working...