Google, Facebook quietly move toward automatic blocking of “extremist” videos

The same applies here, is a violent political organization fighting an authoritarian regime by means of terrorist attacks an "extremist organization" worth blocking, or people fighting for freedom? A good recent example for how hard it can be to distinguish is what happened in Egypt with the Muslim brotherhood [2]

This will just reinforce the sense of people with unpopular opinions and populist movements that they are being discriminated against because of political correctness [3]

[1] http://handbook.reuters.com/?title=T#terrorism.2C_terrorist

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood#2011_revolu...

(try to tell me who is the bad guy and who is the good guy at any given point in that period? It isn't that simple)

[3] http://europe.newsweek.com/college-campus-free-speech-though...

""" ...in the Age of television, our information environment is completely different from what it was in 1783.; that we have less to fear from government restraints than from television glut; that, in fact, we have no way of protecting ourselves from information disseminated by corporate America; and that, therefore, the battles for liberty must be fought on different terrains from where they once were.

For example, I would venture the opinion that the traditional civil libertarian opposition to the banning of books from school libraries and from school curricula is now largely irrelevant. Such acts of censorship are annoying, of course, and must be opposed. But they are trivial. Even worse, they are distracting, in that they divert civil libertarians from confronting those questions that have to do with the claims of new technologies. To put it plainly, a student's freedom to read is not seriously injured by someone's banning a book on Long Island or in Anaheim or anyplace else. But as Gerbner suggests, television clearly does impair the student's freedom to read, and it does so with innocent hands, so to speak. Television does not ban books, it simply displaces them.

The fight against censorship is a nineteenth-century issue which was largely won in the twentieth. What we are confronted with now is the problem posed by the economic and symbolic structure of television. Those who run television do not limit our access to information but in fact widen it. Our Ministry of Culture is Huxleyan, not Orwellian. It does everything possible to encourage us to watch continuously. But what we watch is a medium which presents information in a form that renders it simplistic, nonsubstantive, nonhistorical and noncontextual: that is to say information packaged as entertainment. In America, we are never denied the opportunity to amuse ourselves.

Tyrants of all varieties have always known about the value of providing the masses with amusements as a means of pacifying discontent. But most of them could not have even hoped for a situation in which the masses would ignore that which does not amuse. That is why tyrants have always relied, and still do, on censorship. Censorship, after all, is the tribute tyrants pay to the assumption that a public knows the difference between serious discourse and entertainment-and cares. How delighted would be all the kings, czars and fuhrers of the past and commissars of the present to know that censorship is not a necessity when all political discourse takes the form of a jest. """

- http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Broadcast_Media/AmusingOur...

I think its pretty simple. If a given group has ever claimed responsibility for, expressed the intention to commit, or publicly praised, a terrorist act against civilians, that's an extremist group. Whatever can be done to block their communications with the rest of the world should be done. It's no mystery as to who they are - they're very public about it.

The same kind of analysis should be done for individuals that desire to enter the US or non-residents already visiting the US. "Oh, you were on Facebook saying how the guy in Orlando was a hero? Sorry, time to go home."

No, of course not. None of those have the most important component of extremist ideology: leftism. Except possibly for Dabiq, they're all respectable, mainstream politics -- you know, right-wing.

> This makes more clear the difference between a real jihadist with bad intentions, and a pious person slowly being brainwashed

While I respect you view it this way, I have trouble believing this is even slightly reminiscient of reality. You seem to imply that if not for terrorist propaganda on twitter, "pious" people would not be terrorists. I suspect this is an outlandish strawman devoid of any substance.

> At what cost? Apparently at the cost of innocent lives.

This has always been the cost. Many people have knowingly given their lives for such ideals. Certainly private corporations have the freedom and latitude to make their own decisions, however, there is a reason freedom of speech was built into the bill of rights.

edit: it was indicated that driving them underground was considered positive, I would also like to respectfully disagree. If we accept this is where the "real" terrorists are congregating (online communities) having them remain in plain view and analyzing their recruitment and propaganda techniques would likely be a high leverage option.

I want to note, for anyone reading this, I do absolutely not condone any actions by any terrorist organizations nor their recruitment methods, at all, and I happily have not seen any of thise horrible videos. I just don't like the western hypocricy.

This was cutting edge stuff in the late 1700s, and seemed to be a major model in the 1800s. But I wonder how much it still applies, given how much the world has changed. It certainly seems like these principles are no longer in favor. Most countries have limitations on free speech ("hate speech" laws), no warrant protections on digital privacy, and even limitations on habeas corpus ("terrorist" special cases).

So when Facebook research demonstrated that algorithmic changes can influence people's actions (voting, positive posts, etc), a common response was "wow that's a lot of power. I hope the use it responsibly." The implication was "in favor of liberal democratic values". Well, maybe we DON'T want liberal democratic values any more. Your comment clearly expresses a common mindset, that we don't want the risks that come with those values.

I guess what I'm trying to say can be summed up with "i for one welcome our new algorithmic overlords."

You could say the same thing about middle eastern war movies propagated by media corporations and military contracts in order to create a stereotypical image of cultures across the seas. In an attempt to sign up more military and invade formerly sovereign middle eastern nations.