YouTube's Crackdown on Violent Extremism Mistakenly Whacks Channels Fighting Violent Extremism (boingboing.net) 313
AmiMoJo shares an article by Cory Doctorow:
Wednesday, Youtube announced that it would shut down, demonetize and otherwise punish channels that promoted violent extremism, "supremacy" and other forms of hateful expression; predictably enough, this crackdown has caught some of the world's leading human rights campaigners, who publish Youtube channels full of examples of human rights abuses in order to document them and prompt the public and governments to take action....
Some timely reading: Caught in the Net: The Impact of "Extremist" Speech Regulations on Human Rights Content, a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Jillian C York: "The examples highlighted in this document show that casting a wide net into the Internet with faulty automated moderation technology not only captures content deemed extremist, but also inadvertently captures useful content like human rights documentation, thus shrinking the democratic sphere. No proponent of automated content moderation has provided a satisfactory solution to this problem."
A British history teacher living in Romania complained Wednesday that his YouTube channel had been banned completely from YouTube, possibly over its documenting of propaganda speeches from World War II. He tweeted that he was frustrated that "15 years of materials for #HistoryTeacher community have ended so abruptly."
Later that same day, his account was restored -- but he's still concerned about other YouTube accounts. "It's absolutely vital that @YouTube work to undo the damage caused by their indiscriminate implementation as soon as possible," he tweeted Wednesday. "Access to important material is being denied wholesale as many other channels are left branded as promoting hate when they do nothing of the sort."
Some timely reading: Caught in the Net: The Impact of "Extremist" Speech Regulations on Human Rights Content, a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Jillian C York: "The examples highlighted in this document show that casting a wide net into the Internet with faulty automated moderation technology not only captures content deemed extremist, but also inadvertently captures useful content like human rights documentation, thus shrinking the democratic sphere. No proponent of automated content moderation has provided a satisfactory solution to this problem."
A British history teacher living in Romania complained Wednesday that his YouTube channel had been banned completely from YouTube, possibly over its documenting of propaganda speeches from World War II. He tweeted that he was frustrated that "15 years of materials for #HistoryTeacher community have ended so abruptly."
Later that same day, his account was restored -- but he's still concerned about other YouTube accounts. "It's absolutely vital that @YouTube work to undo the damage caused by their indiscriminate implementation as soon as possible," he tweeted Wednesday. "Access to important material is being denied wholesale as many other channels are left branded as promoting hate when they do nothing of the sort."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes They Don't Even Pretend (Score:5, Insightful)
You're trying like hell to exclude anyone you don't like, but you have to pretend that you're following your own published rules.
We'd hope so anyway. From YT's last statement:
Even if a creator’s content doesn’t violate our community guidelines, we will take a look at the broader context and impact, and if their behavior is egregious and harms the broader community, we may take action. In the case of Crowder’s channel, a thorough review over the weekend found that individually, the flagged videos did not violate our Community Guidelines. However, in the subsequent days, we saw the widespread harm to the YouTube community resulting from the ongoing pattern of egregious behavior, took a deeper look, and made the decision to suspend monetization.
These are the same clumsy noises YT made a couple years ago:
https://www.blog.google/around... [www.blog.google]
Third, we will be taking a tougher stance on videos that do not clearly violate our policies — for example, videos that contain inflammatory religious or supremacist content.
This is contradictory language that says "We have no policy to censor this video, but we're doing it anyway." Bullshit. You DO have a biased censorship policy (and the goons to enforce it); you just know how badly that reflects on you, so you won't admit it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's too early to say if YouTube's actions have had the desired effect.
Previously demonetizing and deplatforming has in fact worked. If it didn't work no-one would care about it, obviously. So assuming that their goal is to stop the harassment going on, there is a fair chance that is action may have the desired effect.
Re:Sometimes They Don't Even Pretend (Score:5, Interesting)
'harassment', 'harmful', 'public interest' etc are just buzzwords to label positions google does not agree with. Totalitarians love using this language because such ideologues can't stand it when others have the power to fling shit back at them.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually "harassment" has a specific legal definition.
In any case, what does this have to do with totalitarians? It's YouTube, a private for-profit company that is desperate to keep advertisers happy because they are how it makes most of its money.
Re: (Score:3)
You'd think the cold war memory would've lasted longer. I guess we need to relearn those lessons again.
YouTube is probably trying to crack down (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh I see. So right wing conspiracies are verboten, but we should buy into 'dog whistling' and other left wing conspiracies?
Why not just let all the content be and let people make their own decisions? That's the truly liberal perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind YouTube's censorship efforts as long as its failures don't include content that supports my world view.
Re: (Score:2)
apparently you think your racism is a-ok. Perhaps you should check yourself before preaching to others.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Intentional (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you link to some examples (Score:2)
I guess there's this [youtube.com]. But you do realize that when the left say "It's going to be brutal and violent" they don't mean "We're going to be brutal and violent" they mean that the establishment is going to send goons against them. I know a bunch of lefties who gave up after
Re:Can you link to some examples (Score:4, Informative)
So far all I've seen is people calling for a Milkshaking here and there.
Is your memory really so bad? Here's [wikipedia.org] a case just a couple of years ago. Also, look up Shining Path, the Sandinista movement, FARC, or, in the United States, the Weather Underground or the Symbionese Liberation Army; also any number of left wing terrorist organizations active in Europe.
It's a fact that left wing extremism has decreased in the last couple of decades - most of the organizations above were active before the nineteen-nineties. I however believe you're misinterpreting the reasons why this happens. You're assigning it to the theory that left wing extremism doesn't exist, or is very mild. I think you're wrong, and the decrease happened because of the fall of Communism. This cut the support of left-wing groups, both financially and ideologically - because a lot of information about the realities of life in former communist countries became available, and popular support dropped.
The effect of 1989 is however fading, as new generations, who never had to live in such a divided world, forget or simply ignore the lessons of the past. The resurgence of sympathy for Communism in the West is one of the symptoms. Of course, countries like Russia use this as a good opportunity to divide, propagandize and generally lead a low level war against the West. So don't be surprised if left-wing extremism returns as well.
I'm well aware of FARC (Score:2, Troll)
Congrats, you found one mildly left wing guy (he was in the Bernie campaign in 2016) that flew off the handle. One. Who was "described by a fellow campaigner in Iowa as a "quiet guy, very mellow, very reserved." In other words he wasn't very active.
Still, I'll give you that, you di
Re:Intentional (Score:4, Insightful)
Left wing extremist violence: throwing milkshakes at people.
or feces and urine [wweek.com] or molotov cocktails [thedailybeast.com] while rioting and attacking peaceful protestors [washingtonpost.com]. Between liberals and conservatives, I'm only seeing one side endorsing assault (punch a Nazi) and censorship [quillette.com] as part of their core ideology. I'm not claiming it doesn't happen on both sides, there are a lot of people out there, but even your acceptance of the idea that it's OK to throw anything on / at a public figure because you don't like what they say should give any fair minded person pause.
Re:Intentional (Score:4, Interesting)
You should include the leftist philosophy professor who was hitting people over the head with a bike lock
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california/424638154.html [nbclosangeles.com]
And the "anti-fascist" protesters who left Paul Welch covered in blood.
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2018/08/he_brought_an_american_flag_to.html [oregonlive.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or being a liberal.
But I repeat myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget dispersing protesters with gunfire and running them down with tanks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Algorithmic bans are hard (Score:2, Interesting)
At the end of the day this is about one thing, making advertisers happy. Like that last lin
Community Guidelines vs. copyright (Score:2)
YouTube would like it very much if ya'll would stop talking about them political things and just stick to video games (the non-violent ones) and movies.
I thought reviewing non-violent video games and movies was just as dangerous on the whole. In this part of YouTube, owners of copyright in the reviewed works have a habit of claiming copyright over the reviews, and review uploaders tend to lack the finances for a vigorous fair use defense in court.
That's just fine actually. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile the left wing black power [youtube.com]
Trancript please.
"I know porn when I see it" (Score:2)
Go check out Beau of the Fifth Column's take (Score:2)
Note that I said "hurting people", not just violence. If you're a segregationist then yeah, you get banned. We figured out decades ago that separate but equal isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
We figured out decades ago that separate but equal isn't.
Too bad they haven't learned that equal outcome and 'identity' are the same thing dressed up in clothes of piety and selflessness. Unfortunately, I suspect we will have to the hard way before the century's out.
Maybe those who feel so threatened by someone's dumbass shit on the internet should stay off it or at least away from such outlets. There's no reason we should dumb discourse down to the level of the dumbest, slowest, most timid soccer mom.
Youtube is fighting conservatives not extremism (Score:3, Informative)
Social Media is opposed to any political opinions except Islam, or leftist.
Leftists and Islamists are entirely free to be racist, to incite violence, and to be as extreme as they want to be.
The following is a list of some conservatives that have been banned, demonetised, deplatformed, or in some way censored. None of them incite violence.
James Woods
Pat Condell
Steven Crowder
Paul Joeseph Watson
Mark Dice
Laura Loomer
PragerU
Milo Yiannopoulous
Gavin McIanns
Roger Stone
Julian Assange
Diamond & Silk
Tommy Robbinison
Alex Jones
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I and several other Leftist SJWs like Kevin Logan have been demonetized on YouTube too.
It's not just the right, YouTube went nuts.
Re:Youtube is fighting conservatives not extremism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And now that pesky "free speech" problem is solved if someone says something you don't like.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
. Good examples of conservatives are Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton
Those are not conservatives, they're Neoliberals.
Heck, did you miss Joe's episode this week ? That is the complete opposite of "keeping society as is".
I'm not trolling here.
No, you're right, you're gaslighting.
Whitewashing (Score:2, Informative)
And here we go. When you whitewash our reality, our history, our facts and the state of the real world, you ignore the crimes and atrocities that humanity has endured. We required the knowledge of these facts to prevent or avoid reliving the bad parts of our history again.
There's another, deeper, issue here as well. Human nature. The reason these things happen is because of aspects of human nature itself, and how we form societies, etc. Survival instinct is a part of this as well. Instead of trying to si
To fight these things, you must first expose them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mass-movement destructive ideologies are attractive and plausible-seeming. They convince people that certain goals and acts are virtuous, and lead them into behaviors that cause great, and escalating, harm. They SEEM good. But as they are followed to their logical conclusion, they prove to be disastrous.
To avoid them, you must understand them, in their early, "demo version" "bright idea", stages, in their late "run into the ground" stages, and how they get from the former to the latter. Then, when you see the attractive early stage, you can recognize it as the first step down the slippery slope. You can avoid it, and lead others away from it.
Suppressing talk about the ideas suppresses this recognition. Then the ideas can resurface, with just enough name-changing to make them non-obvious, and another generation get sucked into the same disastrous path as a previous one.
So the thing to do is not suppress the ideas, but expose them, and give wide coverage to them.
Yes, a few people will take them up and try to follow them. They'll even do some harm. But instead of a mass movement that takes over governments and start pogroms and wars you get a little clutch of people in funny outfits holding a parade, to the amusement and/or annoyance of jeering throngs. But their antics act as a vaccine, while any of their number that actually harm others can be treated as criminals.
The moves to censor social media are the exact opposite of what is needed. The members of every new generation are born ignorant. Hide the "bad" ideas from them and you've just set them up for Santayana's classic observation: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Re: (Score:2)
It also forces people who disagree with something to formulate actual counter-arguments and that gives them insight into what they do believe. That can help them have better beliefs that promote their values.
If you believe something because a 3000-year old religion says you should believe it, that's your right, but if you reflect on why a rule made sense 3000 years ago, you might (or might not) discover that there could be some reasonable modification in order for it to work better in modern society. Simi
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree it is important to understand and speak against these populist ideas, I think there are two important points being missed here.
1. YouTube cares about advertising revenue, not benefiting society.
2. Banning does actually work too. Look at poor Milo, 2 million dollars in debt and unable to find a platform for his "work", completely marginalized and largely hidden from sight. It may be distasteful but from a social media platform's point of view they could either spend a lot of time and effort try
censorship is like revisionist history (Score:2)
rewritten to drive behaviors the writers and censors want to push (and monetize)
I'd expect a channel named Sax and Violins to be censored as well, I mean close enough. /s
Who knew it was hard. No one knew that.... (Score:2)
After all, its such a simple problem to identify hate speech, as separate from legitimate political discussion, satire, and quotes of opponents hate speech - NOT.
Turn over the rocks and let people see what is wriggling underneath. I can't thing of anything more negative to say about Nazis that the things that they say about themselves.
The 'social media' experiment is a FAILURE (Score:2)
Those of you old enough to remember the dialup BBS days: remember how even those early experiments into social media (and that's what they were, in hindsight), microcosms that they were, were still prone to the same pitfalls that todays' Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are facin
The rug analogy (Score:2)
To make the problem go away, you have to change society itself. Which is hard and requires things like good education and teaching people how to think critically so they can spot and disregard BS on their own. Only those wanting a quick and dir
Can't have it both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are really going to remove nazis from YouTube that means all of them, for all time.
Or after ten years will you allow content you are blocking today, because it is historical? 20? Where is the line?
Better to just let people publish whatever, attack each other in comments from a comfy home, so that nothing ever happens anywhere. An internet flamewar is a far more cheerful affair than the real thing.
Please don't feed the lie (Score:2)
What this really is about is political purging. Plain and simple. The powers that be are unhappy that their gate keeper media was bypassed and information that they wanted to stay hidden got out. It is no acci
So make sure you have nothing but good wishes for (Score:2)
Vox (@Vox)
Carlos Maza (@gaywonk)
YouTube for not having a spine and cowtowing, even in a half-assed manner to virulent activists masquerading as journalists.
Like they say... (Score:2)
Fog Of War (Score:2)
In the current regime where the social media giants are constantly removing , demonetizing, hiding, banning content for whatever reason, it has become easy to target anyone and whenever there is any public outcry you can always say it's a glitch.
Leftists will find some other way to censor you (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you host the content yourself, leftists will still go out of their way to attack and censor you. They'll harass you web hosting provider. They'll harass your domain name registrar. They'll harass your employer. They'll harass your customers or clients. They'll harass the payment processors and financial institutions you deal with. They'll harass your family. If none of that works, they'll probably just attack you physically.
For people who claim to support "tolerance" and "inclusion" and claim to be against "extremism" and "bullying", leftists are by far the most hypocritical, hostile, violent, censorious deviants around.
Re:Leftists will find some other way to censor you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Leftists will find some other way to censor yo (Score:3, Interesting)
Letâ(TM)s take an example that is actually weirdly popular with left leaning people: vaccines.
Or rather, anti-vaccination sentiment is quite high on the left because of a distrust of big pharma.
I would argue that YouTube has a duty to work with governments to limit the reach or completely remove most anti-vax content. Itâ(TM)s literally dangerous; itâ(TM)s a massive public health issue. It might be free speech, but itâ(TM)s driving the comeback of measles, and thatâ(TM)s not just s
Re: Leftists will find some other way to censor yo (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone who doesn't want their kids vaccinated is a terrible parent and should have no say in the matter. The children have rights, the state has a responsibility to uphold those rights, and that includes basic healthcare like vaccines.
Same with anti-science medical stuff like refusing blood transfusions (and this most surgery) on religious grounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Some speech is dangerous.
Speech is not dangerous; actions are dangerous. It's okay to produce videos spreading anti-vax propaganda (and it's equally okay for YouTube to choose not to carry them...so long as they also accept liability for what they do choose to carry, but that's for another time), but perhaps governments ought to take more active steps in punishing the resulting child abuse (it's hard to call some 'alternative medicines' anything but -- bleach enemas come to mind).
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Speech is not dangerous;
I swear the "advocates" of free speech are actually it's worst detractors.
Free speech is dangerous. That's why every repressive regime bans free speech because it represents a real danger to the people in power. We fight to protect it precisely because it is dangerous. If speech is inconsequential then there's little need to protect it.
actions are dangerous.
People only act en mass because of speech. With mere action you could maybe kill a few tens before you're stopped. With speec
Re: (Score:2)
Speech is not dangerous
This is a common bit of doublethink. Speech is powerless and cannot cause harm, but speech is also vitally important and must be protected the point where people would give their lives to do so. People say that because they want to be able to say what they like, without any consequences or consideration.
Speech is powerful, it has direct and indirect consequences and they can be dangerous. That's why freedom of speech is so important, and taking it away is so harmful. But that does also mean accepting some r
Re: (Score:3)
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom." --Louis Brandeis
You are well-intentioned, but the solution you've come up with is wrong. You think it is ok to censor because science is on your side, and that is true, but if you wanted to censor gays in the 1950s, science would also have been on your side.
If some speech can be dangerous, then answer it with more speech. Trying to censor an idea can make it more virulent.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to make a distinction (which is a whole debate in itself) I think a better place to draw a line is between facts and opinions on one side and demonstrable falsehoods on the other. Anti-vax content is not merely people not liking vaccines or expressing opinions on the actual risks, but misrepresenting - usually wilfully - actual facts and exploiting misleading statistics.
That's not always an easy line to draw either, but it might be a better place to start.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that YouTube has a duty to work with governments to limit the reach or completely remove most anti-vax content.
I would argue you and others who believe this is an issue have a duty to create counter content.
As it is, there's a "anti-vax" movement, but there is no "pro-vax" movement. Only a "pre-censorship" movement. If your messaging is completely absent, censoring the other side will only create a martyr and drive more people to believe in the conspiracy.
You don't combat misinformation with censorship, you combat it with information.
Re: (Score:3)
Except there is all the information in the world out there. There's a wealth of information. Almost every single piece of evidence points towards a certain fact, yet the conspiracy theorists will point to some (usually discredited) sample that say something. Or they allude to anecdote or some other completely weak evidentiary sample.
It's a hard thing to work out what to do when all the information in the world doesn't help.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah there's only one real solution: accept the fact that free speech means FREE SPEECH.
Free speech does not make you entitled to use the world's largest megaphone on somebody else's dime.
You can have all the free speech you want (Score:2)
You'll still have to do something about online harassment though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To grab a slur from your own dictionary, you sound like a fucking snowflake.
Definition of Leftist (Score:2, Insightful)
Not a Nazi?
Is it "leftist" to censor Islamic extremism? I mean, the "right wingers" wouldn't have a problem with that.
It's pretty obvious that the parent and mods don't know the difference between a leftist and hypersensitive bullies. Because I've seen people censor those who are critical of Christianity. And let's also remember all the censoring of criticisms of Israel - hardly "leftist" causes.
Anyway, whenever someone uses the term "leftist", I immediately discount everything that person has to say becau
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The religious right was very into censorship. The so-called 'moral majority'. It's just that they're no longer in ascendancy. The left is, so now, after a brief freefall in the 1990s, they're trying their brand of puritanism.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.chroniclet.com/Loca... [chroniclet.com]
"A student tried to buy alcohol with a fake ID and shoplift from Allyn D. Gibson, David Gibson’s son. Allyn D. Gibson followed the student out of the store, and the two got into a physical altercation.
Two other students got involved, and police have said when they arrived the three students were hitting Allyn D. Gibson while he was on the ground.
Allyn D. Gibson is white and the students are black. The three students pleaded guilty in August 2017 to misdemeanor charges
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
YouTube used to a great place. Lots of oddballs who would never get on TV earning a living. Then the feminists and SJWs ramped up their victim nonsense... anyone they disagree with is branded toxic - they run to the UN, they run to governments, they run to corporations with bullshit sob stories.
Youtube ends up being run by woman who, like most women, can't tolerate anyone holding opinions she dislikes. Then Brexit and Trump prove that the establishment weren't in control of the narrative any longer. People
Leftism is an inherently destructive ideology (Score:2, Insightful)
Leftism is just an inherently destructive ideology. It's never about building anything. Rather, it latches on to existing, successful, non-leftist societies and tears them apart piece by piece.
It doesn't matter what form this "society" takes. It could be academia. It could be a company. It could be a website and its user community. It could be entire nations. It could even be entire civilizations. Once infected by leftism, the inevitable outcome is total collapse.
The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Venezuela a
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the Communist led National Front in 1945, which put Tito into power? Or the independent Communist State after he split with Stalin in 1948? [wikipedia.org] Or maybe you meant the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which Tito was named the President for Life of?
Yeah, all those were leftist. Most dictatorships are, including Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Hitler, Chavez, Maduro, etc... all preaching the gospel of communism and socialism while nationalizing industries "for the people".
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler didn't "nationalize industries for the people", did he? In fact, he did the opposite and privatized industries. Check out www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
Re: (Score:2)
uh no. the fear is that 'people owned' industry effectively becomes state controlled everything. This has borne out every time socialism/communism have been tried.
Re: (Score:2)
So the social media companies flip from being the free speech wing of the free speech party... to being censorious, moralising nannies and scolds.../quote>
And that, folks, is how social media dies. Just like all the other times, it will be replaced by something less centralized and subject to censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
I say we take away their drivers license.
Re: Worried about your content? (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that TFA is by Cory Doctorow, a notable leftist SJW, who is complaining about YouTube's censorship.
No. He's complaining because content HE wants to see is being taken down, he was perfectly OK as long as the viewpoints being banned were ones he disliked.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that TFA is by Cory Doctorow, a notable leftist SJW, who is complaining about YouTube's censorship.
Doctorow is a leftist who is nostalgic for the early ideal of a fully decentralized Internet, hence his dudgeon at the corporatization of social media.
Leftists keep fearing that corporatization is somehow right wing, but no office-tower MBA wants to limit his/her/their market that way. What you actually get is HR-driven enforced blandness.
Corporatization makes everything beige.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really surprising. Totalitarianism has a long history of purges, where ideologues suddenly turn on each other over relative 'purity.'
Re: (Score:2)
Note that TFA is by Cory Doctorow, a notable leftist SJW, who is complaining about YouTube's censorship.
During the 2017 adpocalypse, YouTube complains came strongly from both sides, because YouTubes bots ran wild and demonetized all sorts of random content.
When news broke that the current VoxAdpocalypse was coming, people from both sides were predicting that YouTube would screw up again in the same way. And of course they were right.
If YouTube has the slightest damn clue about their business, they'd have a "politcal content" category that works just like their "adult content category": either self-selected o
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. The Right is complaining that their stuff is getting hammered.
Their stuff is violent. That's often a violation of ToS.
Some is, but not all. I've watched some that were pretty openly promoting armed revolution, or actions against what they called liberals. Some others that were suggesting maltreatment of women.
Left wingers? some. I'd certainly say less than right. I've come across the occasional woman demanding men be killed. That's not nice.
My major objection to removing that stuff is that it makes good evidence, and allows law enforcement to keep an eye on the nuttier ones.
Re: (Score:3)
I've come across the occasional woman demanding men be killed. That's not nice.
That's a touchstone of the problem.
Left-winger calling for literal genocide is responded with "That's not nice."
Right-winger calls a homosexual mexican with the self-selected twitter handle "gaywonk" a gay mexican and there's calls to "Deplatform the Nazi!"
You mad bro? Way to be so sensitive.
You don't get sarcasm. When I viewed the woman wanting men killed, that automatically triggered my she needs to be arrested and charged with incitement or terroristic threats.
But no, present day crypto conservatives have turned victim mentality - once a touchstone of the left - into the guiding force in their lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely.
"AI," is when a computer says, "You know ... I just don't feel up to it. Do you want to play a game?"
I'm also worried about recommendation (Score:3)
Host it yourself!
I'm interested in hosting a video on my own site. But unlike videos hosted on YouTube, which appear in the recommendation column on YouTube, videos hosted on my own site [pineight.com] do not appear in a recommendation column on any site known to prospective viewers. The wiki of the IndieWeb movement, which aims to promote the concept of hosting works on one's own site [indieweb.org], acknowledges that YouTube and other silos have a recommendation engine [indieweb.org] as an advantage over hosting works on one's own site. How would I arrange for a vid
So do an indie search engine. (Score:2)
How would I arrange for a video hosted on my own site to be recommended to others?
Get together with other IndieWeb denizens and start your own SEARCH ENGINE operation.
Once its database is big enough to be useful, if it hasn't caught on as an "underground classic" already, try to talk (non-Google B-) ) browser purveyors into offering it as an option in the search-box engine selection. That will get you exposure, as those getting fed up with censored pablum trying to describe an alternate universe try other
Re: (Score:2)
I have my own web page. The goddam thing is not even a big frog in a small pond. I'm in a freaking eyeball desert.
Forget the recommendation thingy. For me, just being included in the YouTube eco would give me a huge boost.
However, I'm just not interested, so it's all good.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want someone else to recommend your video, you have to agree to whatever terms they set out for giving that recommendation. You can't force them to recommend your videos.
It's always been that way. Can't force someone to publish your book, can't force critics to recommend it. Can't force people to listen to your speeches, or force people to advertise them.
Just because it's on the internet now doesn't change anything.
Re: (Score:2)
That will work if what you have to say is not in need of a wide audience.
I have my own photography web page and my viewership is in the tens, each month.
That's all I need.
I could amp it up, but at what cost in time and money?
I could do much better by porting over to YouTube. I'm a good photographer.
For those who are web influencers, web pages are not the way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
So in your book, one has to be awash in cash for anything to be important to one?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the requirement of private companies to provide a platform for all speech...
Problem is that the woke crowd has a way of targeting all companies that do business w/ anyone they disagree w/.
Honestly, I don't know what's a more offensive abuse of the English language and this forum, the word "woke" in that co
Re: (Score:2)
Who's talking about Congress or government? We're discussing whether YouTube's crackdown is a genuine desire to supress violent content, or just more of their usual suppression of non-Left leaning content
The term 'woke' wasn't invented by me: it's something that Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) routinely use as the adjective to describe their mission statement. As far as abuse of the language, that's something the English get for spreading it across the world: the more speakers a language has, the more ab
Re: (Score:2)
or just more of their usual suppression of non-Left leaning content
Wow you whiny little snowflake. You really don't care about principle do you? No you only care if you personally are affected. Here's a nice article about youtube banning left leaning content:
https://www.advocate.com/media... [advocate.com]
And you never complained once. Hypocrite.
The term 'woke' wasn't invented by me:
Doesn't stop it from being a deeply crappy word. And you're using it. Along w/ w/.
Re: Algorithms just don't cut it (Score:2, Interesting)
It's humans.
They come up with a list of people with whom they disagree with politically, then construct an algorithm that targets them.
Or did you think they executed this with zero testing?
Re: (Score:2)
They come up with a list of people with whom they disagree with politically, then construct an algorithm that targets them.
What's intersting is that in the many threads we've had on algorithms in the justice department, people fell over themselves to say how algorithms CAN'T be racist because they're algorithms and unbiased. This went as far as down modding links to wikipedia's page on bias in statistics.
Funnily enough when those same people are on the other end of algorithms, of course they can be biased.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course in practice that might well boil down to your view of this rule. A fact based and well reasoned argument about why illegal immigration wouldn't be good for a country, could be banned on the grounds that it makes people dislike not just illegal immigration but also the immigrants involved. Thus "inciting violence"
Re: (Score:2)
It's because all decisions are done by AIs and not humans, and they don't have enough humans to review the videos. So the AI can never learn from mistakes made.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets say that your goal is to censor the rhetoric of white supremacists: you ban the phase, "white people are better than other people." So the supremacists start using the phrase
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That just gives the tyrants what they want. It just adds yet another bureaucracy on top of the shitpile.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they understand that entering the country illegally is a crime?
That's why they're no longer called "illegal immigrants". There's an implication there they may have done something contrary to the law. Let's just change the name to "undocumented immigrants" and pretend they're all fleeing an oppressive regime.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's hilarious ...
No, you don't.