Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Youtube Businesses Media The Internet Technology

YouTube To Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views (nytimes.com) 611

YouTube said on Wednesday that it plans to remove thousands of videos and channels that advocate for neo-Nazism, white supremacy and other bigoted ideologies in an attempt to clean up extremism and hate speech on its popular service. From a report: The new policy will ban "videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion," the company said in a blog post. The prohibition will also cover videos denying that violent incidents, like the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, took place. YouTube did not name any specific channels or videos that would be banned. "It's our responsibility to protect that, and prevent our platform from being used to incite hatred, harassment, discrimination and violence," the company said in the blog post. The decision by YouTube, which is owned by Google, is the latest action by a Silicon Valley company to stem the spread of hate speech and disinformation on its site. A month ago, Facebook evicted seven of its most controversial users, including Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist and founder of InfoWars. Twitter banned Mr. Jones last year.

The companies have come under intense criticism for their delayed reaction to the spread of hateful and false content. At the same time, President Trump and others argue that the giant tech platforms censor right-wing opinions, and the new policies put in place by the companies have inflamed those debates. The tension was evident on Tuesday, when YouTube said that a prominent right-wing creator who used racial language and homophobic slurs to harass a journalist in videos on YouTube did not violate its policies. The decision set off a firestorm online, including accusations that YouTube was giving a free pass to some of its popular creators.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube To Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

Comments Filter:
  • Advertisers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @11:49AM (#58713062)
    this is about Advertisers more than anything else. YouTube's kind of gotten stuffed with this stuff lately and it's a bad look for the advertisers. Extremist views by their nature have a niche audience. If you mix in stuff like segregationists, white supremacists and the like you've got a small number of very loud people pushing an exclusionary agenda.

    That doesn't really work when you're selling stuff. Black, white, brown, yellow... none of it matters next to Green.
    • Re:Advertisers (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @12:08PM (#58713198)

      No advertiser wants their ad on some video that's advocating that *ethnic group* is sub-human. None. And above everything else Google IS an Ad company.

      Ad rates fell substantially about half a year ago when advertisers found out their ads were being shown on videos they didn't want to be associated with. In fact many advertisers simply pulled out until Google could guarantee that their ads wouldn't be shown with extremist content. This forced Google's hand, if they wanted those advertisers back and ad rates to go back up they either needed an algorithm that could detect these videos and filter advertising or they needed to simply ban the content entirely.

      I think Google experimented with trying to find an algo over the last six months or so that would work and this announcement is evidence they failed. That trying to filter this content automatically is impossible because the people hit with this will simply alter their strategies to avoid the algorithm, not to avoid the content that Google's advertisers don't want to be associated with. Ultimately bringing the advertisers back and solidifying ad rates is Google primary concern, everything else will get tossed to preserve that.

      • Your point about "algo wars," is insightful.

        The ecosystem is basically Google vs everybody else. The odds are stacked against Google by sheer number. The probability is that there are way more smart people posting to the platform than Google is dedicating to moderate those posts.

        A very simple example is the initial porn sites that said, "Click here if you are under 18 years old," and those who did were redirected to disney.com.

        Kids would make another run and just click on the other link.

        Algo wars describe t

      • This isn't about advertising . It is just as easy to disable advertising as it is to remove the content. You actually need to go through a process to have advertising enabled on your channel already so... it's actually easier to disable ads than ban content. This is about removing content and ideas they deem outside the orthodoxy. Advertisers are an excuse.
      • The trouble with using Algorithms is this [businessinsider.com].

        Basically, the kind of content they're trying to ban has been made fairly mainstream in political discussion, especially since the last national election. That makes it difficult to avoid "false" positives that would be, well, embarrassing.

        Algorithms can't tell the difference between a dog whistle and overt racism. To be fair, that's because there isn't any.
    • Yes, this is why broadcast TV is more sanitised than niche cable TV which is more sanitized than subscription programs. It makes sense it'd eventually start to happen online since they're the ones that keep TV more self regulated than it'd be via only government regulations.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by HeckRuler ( 1369601 )

      Why not just flag it as "Biggoted bullshit" when they present it to advertisers and LET THEM CHOOSE what they put their ads on. And let them have their own white-list/black-list of channels or videos. And let users know just who is buying ad-space on any given video.

      I think Youtube should be a more or less impartial platform and let people decide what is wrong-think rather than enforcing it themselves.

      • by Texmaize ( 2823935 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @04:30PM (#58715452)
        I am curious how you define bigoted. I highly suspect you might have several bigoted elements in you life, but chose not to see them as such. For example, imagine making a series of movies where one race is always noble, well spoken, and good, while another race will have some heroes, but they will all have serious character flaws. Furthermore, this race is always the villains. You would like to think you would protest such obvious bigotry.

        So, do you mind linking me evidence of your naked opposition to Marvel universe? Think about it, what I said is annoying true.

        See, we live in a world where it is ok to be racist against white people. It is ok to be sexist to men. Right, Gillette? If you are against bigotry, then it is against all its forms. Since this is not the goal of Youtube, google, or any other big leftist tech company, I am incredibly skeptical they can identify a bigot. What they mean is, someone who disagrees with them. No one should be in favor of that, or Western Civ and democracy are truly dead.
    • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
      If Youtube caters to advertisers then Youtube will be serving the same generic pap you see on your television. At that point you say "why should I watch youtube?".
  • so long as it's against those people I don't like?

    • Precisely. All opinions are equally valid, as long as they are correct.

    • And wouldn't you know it, the Slashdot censorship icon has suddenly gone MIA again! Funny how that coincidentally happens whenever leftist censors are in the news.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Relevant XKCD [xkcd.com]

    • so long as it's against those people I don't like?

      Exactly, expect creative definitions of "superior". Let's imagine the military denies some people enlistment because they will eventually need a $50K medical procedure. The military does this for financial reasons not bigotry. A person endorsing this decision will be *seen* in the reviewer's eyes as "declaring" people who do not need this medical procedure as "superior" and thus be violating the terms of use. It won't matter that the endorser is really offering a possible explanation for a policy that does

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @11:59AM (#58713136)

    If youtube wants to ban real Neo-Nazis, and real white supremacists, saying real neo nazi crap, like the Illionois Nazi's we saw in The Blues Brothers from 1980, Go for it!

    The problem is that there's not terribly many of those anymore. It's not so simple. How about the phrase "It's OK to be white". Is that white supremacist? If enough white supremacists say something, does that make it suddenly owned by them?

    How about questioning whether Israel is a just country? Is that anti-Semitic?

    Here's where the real trouble starts.

    The company also said that channels that toe the line of hate speech but don’t explicitly cross the line will face monetization penalties like not being able to run ads or use the Superchat feature.

    Now it's not just "the line" anymore there's another one called "right up to the line line" that's likely even more poorly defined. Greeaaat. Sounds like creeping censorship to me.

    The real problem with censorship is the self-censorship aspect. The far lefties around here all think they "know racism/sexism/whatever-ism when they see it". Yeah right. That works about as well as that stupid "I know obscenity when I see it" that the right wing came up with in the 60s when they decided they need to stamp out porn.

  • by Scott Reimers ( 6019820 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @12:02PM (#58713170)
    The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance [wikipedia.org]
    • The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
      • The paradox of tolerance simply boils down to: We need to curate the proper opinions and not let people think freely. And when there are opinions that we can't tolerate, instead of exposing them to the light of reasoned debate. The best solution is to censor them. I'm constantly amused at the stupidity of that argument.

  • I have a better idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SmaryJerry ( 2759091 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @12:10PM (#58713212)
    The problem with these bans is that on most platforms they claim to being doing a good but catch up a whole bunch of random other people. Not only that but people don't know what exactly caused them to be banned. THE BETTER IDEA is to have complete transparency on bans. For every time someone is banned have a record of the date and time, and also show the clip/comment/post that caused it. Not only show the user that reason but keep a list updated that EVERYONE can see. It is the only way users can see that a system is not getting abused as well as shows exactly what is and isn't against the rules.
  • by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @12:11PM (#58713228) Journal

    Also today, Youtube announced that its automatic subtitling system will automatically translate all spoken words into newspeak subtitles.

    • by mysidia ( 191772 )

      Also... spoken words that are not found in the newspeak dictionary will be automatically bleeped out and shown as the newspeak equivalent in the CC/Subtitle only, instead.

  • Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sdinfoserv ( 1793266 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @12:13PM (#58713250)
    There was a time in the United States when free speech was allowing someone to speak who's ideas and words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of their lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.
    but no. Rather than teach critical thinking, expect social courtesy, explore ideas with open debate, and move past unsubstantiated pseudo nonsense, we move to censorship.
    Let me ask you, who defines "extreme views"? What generation? What social class? What economics?
    Merely calling someones BS out, is now "extreme" as bulling is as simple as making someone "feel uncomfortable" via any unintended words, actions or imagined slight.
    We deserve Trump. He's a mirror of what we've devolved to and reminder of what we've given up.
  • by Hillie ( 63573 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @12:19PM (#58713304)

    Anything they disagree with is considered hate speech.

    So basically videos about Ilhan Omar and the evils she is doing? Hate speech.
    Any evidence of any kind of corruption or bad behavior by anyone who is not white? Hate speech. ....

    Chances that there will still be thousands of videos that advocate the genocide of Christians? High.
    Chances that there will still be thousands of videos promoting pedophilia? High.
    Chances that there will still be thousands of videos promoting death to various groups that are not "protected classes"? High.

    • by Ksevio ( 865461 )
      I don't come across those sorts of videos - if you do, you should probably report them to youtube so they get removed. I imagine you're just making stuff up because you're mad your favorite white supremacist videos will be taken down
  • by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @12:26PM (#58713370)

    why not just create a "free speech" section, like they do for "adult content".

        Then the ad agencies could just not support content there.

    If they are banning based on content, youtube will soon be a barren wasteland with no left, or right content, just cat videos. Not that there's really anything wrong with that, as long as they treat all haters equally...

    Although that doesn't seem to be happening on either side:

    https://boingboing.net/2019/06... [boingboing.net]

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      YouTube doesn't allow porn either. You could argue they could create a porn section... But that probably wouldn't be of much benefit for them. Even if it's sectioned off, advertisers won't want to be on a platform that allows that kind of stuff anywhere.

    • by Ksevio ( 865461 )
      Because then it just ends up with a horrible section. Maybe the horrible people can just move to their own video service like that voat site
  • Change my mind! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Chas ( 5144 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @12:26PM (#58713378) Homepage Journal

    You're talking about their decision NOT to deplatform Steven Crowder.

    The activist pushing this is a guy by the name of Carlos Maza.
    He's works for Vox and has a huge platform on YouTube. Larger than even Crowder's.
    He's also a jackass who advocates for violence to be used against those whom he disagrees with, and has no problems inciting such violence.
    Also, every term that Crowder has used to describe him is:

    A) Accurate
    B) Mean
    C) A term that Carlos Maza HAS USED ABOUT HIMSELF.

    Additionally, Crowder is a comedian AND his videos are rebuttals of videos made by Maza & Co.
    As formulated, they are NOT against YouTube's TOS.
    So, Maza, in an attempt to get His Way, is going to go scorched earth.
    He's going to try and trigger ANOTHER Adpocalypse. One that won't hurt HIM. But could absolutely RUIN smaller YouTube content creators.

    Free speech
    No TOS violations.
    Fuck arbitrary bans.

  • by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @12:29PM (#58713414)

    rappers with songs of hate against other races are still fine

    radical feminists with hate speech against males are still fine

    hate speech against those that hold traditional family values is still fine

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      If they won't ban guys like Crowder for his homophobic crap, they certainly aren't going to ban people for criticising "traditional family values".

  • Then it's OK.

  • The idea that you can start out a news story speaking of 'neo-Nazism, white supremacy and other bigoted ideologies' as well as 'justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion' but then you also have to include conspiracy theories videos about Sandy Hook. Because those are totally similar.

    But I guess when you live your life looking for new and interesting ways to be offended then there isn't a different between actual racism and just seeing something that offends you.

  • Disent (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HeckRuler ( 1369601 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @12:36PM (#58713518)

    You know what? I'm actually opposed to this. Rah rah freedom of speech and all that jazz. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend it your right to say it". (This is where you guys get to scream incoherently and accuse me of being a Nazi myself. Siiiigh.) Demonetizing them, sure. That's been a kick in the teeth to a bunch of controversial people. And some unfairly. But that's business. You can't demand people stand with you and support you. I'd prefer a more transparent "WHO IS CHOOSING TO SUPPORT THIS GARBAGE", and more direct options of supporting channels, but that's honestly just me whining about google's business model.

    As a reminder though "bigot" is anyone that simply refuses to consider that they're wrong. Pretty much a synonym with "closed minded". If you refuse to consider the downsides to vaccines, or the merits of eating meat, or positive effects on society from the 2nd amendment... then you're a bigot. And it's ok to consider these things. "What about all the good things that Hitler did?" And he DID do a number of good things. He brought Germany out of a depression. He pushed for worker's rights and broader healthcare support. It's just that, when compared to the giant pile of vile atrocities he also committed, oh look, it doesn't balance out at all and he's an evil monster.

    And "freedom of speech" is an ideal born out of the age of enlightenment and is far older than our government and the first admendment, which quite accurately does only restrict the US government. It is a moral issue, not (always) a legal one. If you thought upholdng freedom of speech just doesn't apply to you or yours while you're spouting comments online, then you're likely a massive hippocrite.

    My fear is that mearly saying such things and daring to have a nuanced view instead of banging the party drum sufficiently loud enough will be used against me. (And it already has, I've been accused of being a nazi simply for defending everyone's freedom of speech).

  • That's mighty white of them! Oh... wait...
  • by eaglesrule ( 4607947 ) <eaglesrule@ p m .me> on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @12:57PM (#58713726)

    we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events ... took place

    Question the official narrative and you'll be censored.

    it’s critical that our monetization systems reward trusted creators

    Where the only way to earn the trust and not be suppressed by the algorithms is to be a corporate 'creator' like Vice, Vox, Young Turks, CNN, Guardian, etc. Definitely does not include YOU.

    hate speech policies

    Good luck trying to reach that ever moving goalpost.

    The openness of YouTube’s platform has helped creativity and access to information thrive.

    Finally. The one, singular, gem of truth in that entire pile of disingenuous PR bullshit.

    YouTube's greatest strength also happened to be it's greatest flaw: becoming a marketplace of ideas where even the lowliest pleb could attract an audience of millions, and without the forced script or talking points handed down from their boss. With the authoritarian leftist monoculture of SV and the desire of elites to control public dialog, burning down what made Youtube great was simply inevitable.

    The curated trending page was just a preview of what Youtube will become. [youtube.com]

    • by Ksevio ( 865461 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:57PM (#58714278) Homepage

      Question the official narrative and you'll be censored.

      Feel free to question, but there's only so far you can go with that excuse. Events like the holocaust or Sandy Hook are very well documented and telling people they didn't happen is just lying. There's evidence that people believe these lies and have done bad things because of them.

  • by bryanandaimee ( 2454338 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @01:06PM (#58713838) Homepage
    The problem with banning borderline, and near borderline content is that it disproves the premise that protects these companies from litigation. They are given protection from litigation because they were set up as a platform. Since they don't curate the content of the platform they can't be held liable for the content.

    In chasing advertising dollars they have started to move more toward curating their content. At some point it will become obvious that youtube is a publisher and not a platform. At that point they will be legally liable for the content of their site just like any newspaper, magazine or blog.

    Unfortunately for youtube I'm not sure if it is physically possible to actually curate the entire content of the site. People will always be more clever than the algorithm that flags problematic content.

  • This is an extremely difficult endeavor. Just look at the concept of Free Speech in the United States. We have hundreds of years of jurisprudence on what it is and isn't and it's still not 100% settled. Most recently, people are getting reality checks on "hate speech" -- learning quickly that "hate speech" is a buzz term, not a legal term and that it's, in fact, completely legal.

    Fighting words. Time, place, and manner. Imminent lawless action.

    There are many concepts within the distribution of ideas that are

    • How YouTube plans to ride YouTube of "extremism" (not even just "hate") when the term itself is exceedingly vague and to do so in such extreme volume while avoiding liability for any false positives or false negatives is mind boggling.

      Only if you ascribe honest intent. Also if Youtube seems pretty apathetic about creators getting flagged and losing income through false copryright strikes when there's such a thing as fair use.

      As for the plan, its actually quite simple. Youtube already brings on 'trusted flaggers' such as political groups like the SPLC and the ADL who don't even give lip service to impartiality and fairness. So anything those groups don't like. Also recall that Youtube CEO Susan Wojcicki is a feminist who gets triggered by

Maybe you can't buy happiness, but these days you can certainly charge it.

Working...