People who document violent extremism are being shut down in Youtube’s crackdown
boingboing.net
boingboing.net
In honour of our great advertisement-driven society, we shall click that suggested "Up next" video on Youtube, and continue to scroll through that infinite Facebook wall which is so miraculously calculated to maintain our attention.
There's nothing wrong with this, right?
But seriously, people promoting rule changes so that advertisers can exclude anything sinful are certainly also against anything that makes Youtube interesting.
"sin" isn't the only interesting thing about Youtube. I watch plenty of content which is both non-violent and interesting.
For example for Europe: sex => ok; violence => not ok
compared to the US: sex => not ok; violence => ok
What we will end up with: sex => not ok; violence => not ok
What might be best for educated civil society: sex => ok; violence => ok
Pretty reductionist, but that is where I see Youtube heading towards to.
The same thing we use when enforcing the rules of any infrastructure: publicly accountable and transparent due process. These problems will continue until big tech implements a proper rule of law[1]. They will continue[2] to be responsible for these difficult decisions as long as their platforms idea of justice is the rule of man[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
[2] https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024060/Still-Logged-In-What-A...
That's not what I'm talking about. The platforms need to create a new form of "legal process" where these issues are defined and adjudicated in an open process. Google et al are de facto a new layer of government, and they need to act like it. Currently, they are trying to act like a "(mostly) benevolent dictatorship" and finding out that the hard way that you can't actually please everyone. The proper way to handle calls for censorship/banning/etc is to tell them to take their grievances to the formalized judicial process and/or argue for changing that process in the formalized, open "legislature".
For a much better explanation, I highly recommend watching Raph Koster's talk (my previous [2]). Even though it was at GDC and initially talks about VR and MMOs, the talk is not actually about games; it's about the ethical and social responsibilities of creating social spaces, and the may ways we've tried to solve their problems in the past.
What's "extreme"? Is two men wanting to marry each other extreme? Is advocating for freedom of abortion extreme? Is criticizing the ruling national party extreme? Is saying that climate change is influenced by human actions extreme? Is exposing instances of 'bad apple' abuses of power extreme? There are a lot of people who will answer yes to all of those, in the US alone. ("Of course we believe in freedom of speech, but certainly extremism should be censored!")
I suggest not handing totalitarian censorship tools like the vague "extremism" to politicians and companies.
Well, advocating for genocide on Muslims, spreading deadly propaganda such as antivaxx or "great replacement" or such certainly qualifies as "extremism".
For problems of manipulation, I suggest the solution is not a politician or company getting to choose who gets to manipulate, but rather, becoming more resilient against manipulation.
If you're suggesting Google should be prevented from moderating content that doesn't meet a strict definition of legal harm... fair enough, but there's nothing stopping laws from being passed which would justify Google's policies.
Would it be okay to substitute "Five 9s of uptime" in an SLA with "solid uptime" and call it good?
5 months ago Alex Jones was extreme. In this last round, Eli the computer guy was considered too extreme.
They have pretty much blocked historical videos containing much about NAZI Germany as well. [1] Going to be real annoying to lose some classic comics which definitely would not pass the hate/sensitivity crowd today.
I understand the concern youtube has but once you go down this path you pretty much are rewriting history. that is what they need to understand, the past is exactly that, a representation of the views and outlooks of the people and places depicted.
If this continues how long before other countries demand to have content their censors deem offensive removed? Why would we be in position to tell them, no we don't find it offensive, when we don't give them the same right in return.
You can be offended all you want but that does not mean you get to prevent others from viewing it.
With regards to new content postings they obviously need a system which first includes trusted accounts, then their algorithm, then an challenge and remediation system that is well documented and enforced.
[1]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/06/youtube-b...
You just don't have the right to tell a private company what content they must allow.
While in theory you aren't losing that ability, in practice most people can't afford to.
Maybe I can use my neighbor's power to operate a giant billboard with my personal views? I mean, it's not cheap, but I really think my POV deserves the largest possible platform.
Anything less is effectively my neighbor censoring me.
> Set up your own website and host the content. Nobody is removing that ability.
In practice, things might not be that simple.
And this is a strawman anyway, there are plenty of sites that let you post video content without these same sorts of policies.
And if they don't have the network effects of YouTube, boo hoo.
You can ask users to pay for it just like Netflix, New York Times etc do. Or have advertising.
But of course just like YouTube you then need to factor in their needs.
As a user, I am certainly interested in which advertisers are promoting more content controls. That would be quite a service. Nothing is expected to be provided here.
That would be true for some other private company, but I'm not sure this libertarian attitude is applicable to Google/Alphabet - it holds immense power over the 'net nowadays, I bet it can kill any emerging competitor.
It would be illegal for companies to do this, and governments certainly can tell private companies not to discriminate against certain classes when hiring. Google, meanwhile, is not breaking the law by choosing what content is hosted on their platform and under what circumstances.
You're presenting a false dichotomy here because Google is not a state, it is a private company, and because content creators are not a government whose laws Google must follow, but rather are themselves bound by Google's terms of service, which grant Google absolute, irrevocable and arbitrary power over their accounts, content, visibility and monetization.
No, but again, that would already be illegal, whereas Google demonetizing content due to violence is not.
Moderating or banning content for any reason is not equivalent to discrimination against a protected class, but fair enough - "absolute, irrevocable, and arbitrary" regarding content and accounts, where legal.
My characterization of the rights Google has over user supplied content versus the rights users have over Google is still far more accurate than not.
Web hosting comapnies have rules too. Even VPS and public cloud companies have content rules for what you can do with VPS.
So you have to do some kind of server hosting, and make sure your ISP will not take you down for content.
So this turns out to be a bit more involved than "set up your own website".
Also, your statement is not completely true. Phone companies are not allowed to police content of your communications, for example, even if they are private.
Cast your own copper.
Make your own country.
It's always the argument of the censors that you can just move to the next layer. Then push for censorship of that as well. `for (;;)`.
And when there's no place to retreat to, because they're literally telling you "no wrongthink allowed on my planet", you won't have any means left to complain.
Advertisers do not want to be associated with violent content. Regardless of whether the content is serving some greater cause or not.
You, sir, are a man of culture
Which is why there is no money in Boxing, UFC, action movies and so on. It's got nothing to do with violence.
True. They do not want that.
> And for good reason.
I disagree. That's not a good enough reason to censor such information from the public.
I can't imagine some bot will get this right, but I feel we're morally obligated to retain the material or we'll get even worse at telling the difference.
It's almost like we're sliding back to 1935. There is no shared understanding of the fact that empathizing with people - all people, regardless of their diversity - and trying to understand their views is what leads you to the most correct views over time. It's why the modern West won, and its adversaries lost. I'm starting to think that some people really do hate us for this freedom - they want to be told what to think, and find the very idea of intellectual curiosity or openness to be inherently offensive.
When the masses rely on one person, then that one person changes his mind, you get what you get.
YouTube, really, is just someone else’s computer. He doesn’t like how it’s being used, he fixes that.
I’m not surprised here.
There has to be a shift to self-reliance with this sort of thing.
Choose target video controversial threshold: 0 =O===== 100
There is no fine well defined line between public documentation and promotion. Raising awarness is a form of promotion. Even if material is ultimately objective. There is no going around it, so it's always going to be subjective and leave someone unhappy, either for material being present or not present.
What makes youtube important isn't that they host your videos, but that they get people to watch them.
the best solution is to fight them back by showing them the opposite ideas. don't censor Nazis, put as advertisements and suggestions to positive content highlighting why they are wrong.
Not that rational arguments seem to work in this discussion...
Since the broader term includes more materials than "badly drawn anime comics", it appears you do not understand what most people usually mean by "Nazis". (To confirm my suspicion, I see at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19729764 that you used the phrase "national socialists knew very well", suggesting that you consider it as a term for people in the past, and not those in the present. How then did any of them have web sites, and were interested in anime?)
By the way, many people who, seemingly hyper-pedantically narrow the use of "Nazi" for "actual national socialists" or (seen elsewhere) "members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party" are often deliberately derailing the topic. My advice is to not follow practices which might mistakenly get you labeled as a Nazi sympathizer.
In any case, the HN guideline is to assume the "strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize". "Actual national socialists" is a much weaker and not really justifiable interpretation.
While that certainly includes antisemitism, most of the people in the organizations you describe do not consider themselves white, nor, I suspect, are they doing so because of a believe in some variant of Aryan racial superiority.
That makes them "not Nazis".
Similarly, those killed in the Holocaust included Slavs, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roma, and homosexuals. Though these were considered racially inferior, deviant, or enemy nationals, while the Jews were falsely maligned as a 'counter-race', deserving of far worse treatment.
That does not make all anti-LGBT people Nazis by extension.
Just like it does not make all anti-Semites Nazis.
I just wanted to point out that I actually visited the site once and it was ridiculous from top to bottom without any significant amount of users (per page rank). They were spectacularly banned which just seems to be like upgrading the position of North Korea. Something you might want to avoid. I believe it is worth thinking about it.
> My advice is to not follow practices which might mistakenly get you labeled as a Nazi sympathizer.
Me being a bit non-conformist from time to time is actually pretty useful against ideologies like nazism. Guilt by association is a different story however. But you are correct, let us be more self critical about that.
When you remove their funding - by demonetizing them - their spread slows.
you need to understand that the people who are convinced of these ideas are easily manipulated emotionally. All you really need to do is offer them a meaning and a feeling of belonging to a group. they don't care about facts, you need to emphasize about the group's betrayal to them.
A newspaper is not obligated to publish every letter-to-the-editor which comes its way.
A scientific journal is not obligated to publish every article submitted. Articles are even retracted.
Their failure to publish is neither "cutting someone's tongue" nor "censorship". Or, if it is censorship, it's been around since forever, making the term meaningless.
Why should Google have an obligation to publish that no other media company has?
(I also agree with DanBC that what you wrote is not true. Among other things, why are there so many anti-vaxxers when the anti-anti-vaxxers have used the techniques you mentioned, and more, and when there is no credible doubt about the lack of connection between vaccinations and autism?)
> Steven Crowder's hate channel
I don't think it's a very trustworthy source of information.
That's a genuine surprise! You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boing_Boing
> > Steven Crowder's hate channel
I don't see this phrase in the article, perhaps it was removed. But, regardless, it seems quite apt in this context: https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1134264395717103617
> I don't think it's a very trustworthy source of information
Use of a single, seemingly accurate, phrase seems like an odd reason to distrust a source
It was in another article, which is directly linked in this one.
> But, regardless, it seems quite apt in this context
No it's not. He's just being a conservative asshole.
> Use of a single, seemingly accurate, phrase seems like an odd reason to distrust a source
It's not just the single phrase, but what you can extrapolate from it. Calling someone a hate channel is a pretty serious deal these days, and just throwing such an accusation around like that shows that at the very least whoever wrote that article doesn't in the slightest bit intend to show the complete picture. And no, I won't trust a source that I caught once telling only half the story on things where I wouldn't even know.
First step: remove the literal nazis. Nazis are bad and anyone who says otherwise is bad. Anyone who screams, “censorship!” About removing nazis is defending nazis.
Second step: Evaluate what worked and what didn’t work about removing nazis. Correct mistakes.
Third step: Pick the next most evil topic after nazis and repeat.
Third step: Broaden the definition of nazi and repeat.
If you had your own website where choices of this kind need to be made.. sure, you can go ahead and make determinations based on principle. Your own definitions and evaluations of Nazism, evil, eviler and such will shine through, especially the priority list. Your own values will shine through the "what worked?" Step. Overall though, it would be totally fine. You are a person (presumably a decent one) and your principled choices are a great way to govern your website.
YouTube is a major part of global media, a major subsidiary of Google/alphabet and a major channel through which democratic politics, speech and social life is conducted around the world. YouTube makes more mayors, parliamentarians an public intellectuals than they likely even bother to know about.
It's an institution, in every sense. Ways of doing things that are perfectly workable for a person do not translate to institutional scale.