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.
Free speech is always to nice a thing (Score:1, Redundant)
To actually let the populace have.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why don't they just remove the videos then instead of messing up the search results.
Re:Free speech is always to nice a thing (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why don't they just remove the videos then instead of messing up the search results."
Exactly, remove the videos or refuse the search, what they're doing is like shooting themselves in the foot, it promotes the idea that they manipulate search results.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> The videos are delivered as ads.
Perfect then - people looking for uncensored content can use ad blockers. Win-win!
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting - Thanks
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Free speech is always to nice a thing (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why I have NEVER signed up for a Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, My Space, Google, Twitter, or similar account. F' them. I'll stick more independent mediums.
The good thing about youtube, no account needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Free speech is always to nice a thing (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
While you are free to say that, this has nothing to do with free speach rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Here it is in action. (Score:5, Funny)
juhad jihad jewsaders aloe snackbar [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Together with 72 virgins. Forever.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get that virgin reward. Like they are meant to be people, so what, are they are being punished getting stuck with some rapey dick. Now if they are being punished, they means they were sent to Hell, which would mean the rapey dick, was also sent to Hell. Well, Hell ain't meant to be big on the rewards, so one can only assume you get sent there without the fun bits, all temptation and nothing from it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. Seems the likely reward for those asshats.
Re: (Score:2)
All that's missing is chrome spray paint.
Thought police. (Score:1)
It's so great to see the thought police are out in full force.
Re: (Score:2)
so if people search for Amy Schumer they will get Tomi Lahren instead?
Ehh neither one is funny or informative.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Going to be amusing (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
No need to make stuff up re: radical islam? (Score:2)
You're kidding yourself, buddy. (Score:1)
It sure would be nice if ordinary people understood more clearly how they're allowing themselves to be exploited by the ultra-rich.
And YouTube redirecting is going to accomplish anything relative to preventing people from deciding to join a terrorist faction ? If you believe the answer is yes, you're kidding yourself.
The problem is not the videos, the problem is many layers beneath any videos. For one example, consider that the US invading countries might act to convert people to what the US calls terrorism. You know, if your family is killed in a drone strike, that might just cause you to have significant anger toward the entity which
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I don't think it will be particularly effective. And of course, we wouldn't have the foreign Jihadis or their recruitment videos in the first place, without the long history of military intervention
Who determines the definition of hateful content? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Hate speech is whatever the folks in charge don't like. Currently, they're on the left
Uhhhhh....
Re: (Score:2)
So you want alternatives to youtube, and you figure the best way to find that out is to ask on Slashdot? Checking back later? Posting as AC?
Amazing job man.
Just use one of the other platforms! (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason required to make me want to depart from YouTube is the impossibility of departing from YouTube. You like this cage? Great. It's a nice cage, I admit. I wonder what will happen if I try to use this service to criticize Google? I mean, not the chinstroking way talking head way. The effective way. What do you think will happen?
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing?
On what grounds do you think that Google will start terminating your videos for taking a critical position? It's quite a leap from ISIS videos to "they're going to use this to delete any negative feedback" and though they've had some hiccups, there's nothing to suggest Google is inclined to bend that way.
Why don't we not make this an adversarial thing and, for the sake of either proving me wrong, or for satisfying your position, go and produce some content. Anonymously rag on Google/YouTube, star
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason required to make me want to depart from YouTube is the impossibility of departing from YouTube. You like this cage? Great. It's a nice cage, I admit. I wonder what will happen if I try to use this service to criticize Google? I mean, not the chinstroking way talking head way. The effective way. What do you think will happen?
You think videos that criticize google or youtube get removed? lol. You must be a fucking idiot to think that.
Just checked. Yes, you're a fucking idiot. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How did you check to see if postings threatening (not merely critical) to Google don't get removed, genius?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube already has content guidelines in place (nudity, violence, etc) -- great, enforce those. But circumventing a search because someone upstairs doesn't like the *message* in the video -- that's a whole other can of worms.
Google/Youtube didn't get to their position by playing censor, and it's questionable of them to start now that they've got a lock on so many eyeballs. If google wants to be a near-monopoly, they should act in as neutral manner as possible.
Who defines what is hateful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who defines what is hateful (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Who defines what is hateful (Score:2)
You may wish to learn who the prophets were. None of the above quotes were from the prophets, I'm pretty sure.
Re: (Score:2)
What does any of that have to do with hate?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Youtube does (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
In related news (Score:1)
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.
bugger (Score:2)
As a researcher in this specific area, this is... unhelpful. :(
Hopefully not just for jihadists (Score:2)
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 tried it (Score:2)
I was shown how many bombs the USA has dropped https://www.youtube.com/result... [youtube.com]
To counter censorship (Score:2, Insightful)
Right in the article
I still wonder if some of these people can stop a bit and start reflecting on what they are doing.
This is hard (Score:3)
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
Easier if one is tolerant of dissenting views (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
"Alphabet subsidiary whose mission is to counter extremism, censorship, and cyber attacks"
So they plan on countering censorship by censoring?
Hateful an euphemism (Score:2)
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
Kinda gets right to the heart of the matter (Score:2)
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
Busy SJW work to ban your protected speech (Score:1, Troll)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Too much on Tiananmen Square and that social media or video site will not be allowed in China.
So the SJW will have to make a social media site more ready for growth and expansion in China.
No Tiananmen Square. No Tank Man. No 1989 related comments, images, news or video clips.
No anniversary of Tiananmen Square.
No June 4th terms, student movement or federation comments.
No democracy movement terms.
Thats why free speech is so vital onli
Proof of concept (Score:1)
Now apply the Redirect Method to religious content...
When fascism comes to America... (Score:2)
Neil Gaiman said it best (Score:2)
So if one was to search for... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Christians rule, don't you know?
Handmaid's anyone?
Censorship never ends well. (Score:3)
The question is, who decides? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice examination of how the conservative agenda is NEVER exposed.