YouTube will still judge me, even if I use Comcast cable or Verizon 4G to upload the data.
239 karma · joined July 7, 2016
We, as people, have same influence on current Google/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit censorship as we do on future Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/Charter censorship... none what so ever.
Am I wrong?
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/un-adopts-religious-int...
How should I trust your words now?
Obama Administration supported banning criticism of Islam: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/un-adopts-religious-int...
When are you going to charge Google/Twitter/Facebook/Reddit for banning speech that they don't like on the Internet?
Is Free Speech a human right according to UN?
Is criticism of religion, or ideology, included in that right?
Edit: I was serious. I really liked what you said, especially: "Human rights aren't "provided" to you. You are born with them and they can never be taken away, only violated by thugs and tyrants."
1. They don't have to give good service. Most are monopolies.
2. They already do pass all costs, and all profit margins created, to customers.
3. They want higher profit margins than currently being squeezed.
4. They want more entities to pay them. New classes of customers.
5. Deeper the pockets and fewer the paying entities, easier it would be for ISPs. HBO charges the Cable providers, for long long time HBO didn't allow individuals to buy directly from them, subscribing through a Cable provider was the only option. It allowed HBO to have a simple money supply from big entities with deep pockets which were easy to control. HBO could simply terminate one cable provider. Comcast can simply terminate preferential treatment to Vimeo if they didn't pay. Much easier than sending 4th reminder and collection notice to 65 year old Mrs. Smith.
How does net neutrality matter if what travels on a perfectly neutral net is controlled anyway, actually controlled much more effectively, by a very few with agenda that goes far beyond just greed for money?
"Don't open and judge my TCP/IP packets. But, I will open and judge your video uploads all day, every day." - YouTube
How is that fair?
No, thank you. I refuse to be fodder for something, only to be surrendered at a later point in the fight for fairness.
"Bernie" taught me that lesson. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
In light of recent transgressions against speech on their platform, I wouldn't use the word "perfect" to describe YouTube feed.
Your responsibility :
1. Don't share things that you want to keep private.
2. Carefully weigh the trade offs when you agree to share things about you. There is no retroactive privacy on things that you yourself shared.
3. You can attempt to retract what was shared about you, but you can't hold society responsible for successful retraction of that piece of information, from media or minds. You can add addendum e.g. an apology from someone, you can claim damages, but we can't rewind time.
Government responsibility:
1. Don't criminalize people trying to keep things private. This would be similar USA Fifth Amendment, do not force people to share what they don't want to share. Government can ask "What crimes you committed in the privacy of your home?", but it can't force people to answer that question or punish for not answering it.
2. You can't plead fifth and deny proving your identity when you want to take food stamps from government, or when you get unearned tax credit. Just like in any transaction, Government can ask you to prove who you are and may demand increasing levels of proof depending on the transaction. Your choice would be to not participate in such transactions, in certain situations you implicitly give permission to Government to demand proof of identity from you, e.g. if you request a loan to dig a well or subsidy to buy fertilizer or collecting unemployment benefit. Security of exchange of money from government to people is Government's responsibility and it may demand increasing levels of identification depending on the nature of the transaction, as deemed appropriate by abused observed or potential for abuse. In places with high corruption rates, strong identification would be required and would be appropriate. I don't think people would be OK if someone collects their pension using just name, address and birth date, and government throwing hands in the air accusing you for not protecting your name, address and birth date.
What you can't do:
1. Make the world forget what it already knows. Can't ask Google to delete a piece of information about you from entire internet, once you yourself post it on Blogger. You can delete the post from Google, you can delete your account, but you must realize that once something is not private, you have no control over who has seen it and how many formats/copies of that information got created.
2. Get into a contract to drop certain privacy and then deny fulfilling the contract because of privacy rights. E.g. a model can't say that she won't show her face on a fashion ramp because of privacy after taking payment. A storybook author can't say that she won't share her book with publisher because of privacy after taking payment.
3. Make a demand that a private entity, on its private premises, can't have monitoring equipment. A store may decide to have cameras at the self checkout lanes, and it may deny self checkout to folks with full face covering. Your choice would be to not shop at such places, you can't use law to shut down the business's ability to monitor their private premise as they wish. An employer may make alcohol breath analyzer test required e.g. for a surgeon before surgery, a pilot, air traffic control at the start of the duty, or a long distance train driver. The employees in this case can't claim privacy rights to deny such tests.
4. When you are in public place e.g. a sidewalk, you are participating in a public endeavor that comes with you dropping the privacy protection e.g. compared to what you would get in your bedroom. The rays of light that bounce off of you or your belonging are fair game to be captured. Photographers do not need to take your permission to capture rays of light that are travelling in their direction when they stand on a public place or a private place they own or a private place where the owner has given them permission to capture the rays. Those photographs can only be used for personal consumption or for non-profit activities e.g. an investigation, news reporting. Any commercial use of the photo e.g. in an product advertisement, would require release agreement from the person in the photo.
I think Strong Privacy and Strong Identification both are required, for some things they are mutually exclusive, in some parts you trade one for another. Authentication/Authorization/Encryption/Non-Repudiation is needed to deliver these rights.
Consider this, if privacy laws are absolute in every aspect of life then you can't have antitrust laws that stop competitors from fixing prices or agreeing to anti-competitive behavior. If privacy laws are absolute then smartphone apps that capture photo/video of an crime unfolding won't be allowed due to privacy concerns of the criminal. If you can keep something private (lock the door to your room, your safe deposit box), no one will force you to expose it, but one can't demand privacy in situations that naturally expose information to others, unless you explicitly set the expectation of privacy (attorney-client, doctor-patient, a service provider) as part of a contract. Government may make laws to cover most common situations e.g. your real estate agent sharing your budget with the seller of the property, your medical records etc.
Privacy law is natural. What I draw and erase on a doodle board in the privacy of my home is my business, you can't force me to divulge it. What I say in my head to myself is my business, there is no thought crime. What I sing when on a trail is my business, no one can force me to say which song I sung. When government or corporation tries to invade the natural privacy, it should be stopped. In that regard, privacy is a fundamental right. But, privacy can't be claimed to hide criminal record from your neighbors or employers.
More of me trying to sort it out in my own head.
This is why who programs the AI has such influence over the value judgement. Just because AI does it, doesn't mean there is no human influence over it. Actually AI doing it instead of army of humans means handful of people have control over the outcome.
That definition of "toxic" is defined for Google's business. Keep the user's attention and eyes on Google's web properties serving Ads.
What is toxic? Anything that makes a person leave, reducing Ad imprints.
A person may stop commenting if they are convinced or challenged of their views. In a normal conversation, all tools of a language, comedy, sarcasm, hyperbole etc. can be used to show someone a new way to look at things.
Google AI is going to put evolutionary pressures on language features. Language features that keep a person watching Ads on Google properties will be selected for propagation.
That's how this feels, wheeling and dealing. Jockeying for power.
Show me the outrage over equal representation at the national cemetery.
Show me the outrage over equal representation in the lumber industry.
How about Alaska crab fishing jobs?
How about windmill installation and maintenance?
How about garbage pickup?
Someone has it and you don't. You want it and you will say whatever it takes to get it. It's just mere words. Sexist, misogynist, just air through mouth. Throw it and see if they give you something.
If liberal Google, people educated in best institutions we had to offer throughout the world, is sexist then humanity has no hope.
>Demanding more proof (besides the decades of evidence of women fleeing workplaces because of stress; women getting paid less for the same job; women overlooked for promotion despite reviews etc) is just more excuse-making.
You are not asking to fix any of this. You are asking for hiring bar to be lowered for women so that they make up 50% of the workforce. Those are two different things.
Show me a sexist and his sexist actions and I would gladly fight that person along with you. This collective shaming is as unjust as sexism, and more insulting.
Let's show door to that male college kid, because some bosses at Google had been sexist in their past hiring practices. The bosses, who enjoy full Google employment.
Why are you punishing the kid for crimes of the Google boss who is still gainfully employed?
This is where group think, collectivism, identity politics has gone wrong. This is why people have left the political left.
Thank you for taking time to reply in detail.
Damore talking about it did not cause "diversity hire" impressions.
Google shot the messenger in this case.
Scenario 1:
Hiring policy : Best candidate for the job irrespective of race, religion, color, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation.
A good Engineer who happens to be a woman: I work for Google. :)
Society: How awesome!!! You go, girl!!!
Hiring policy : We are trying to have more gender diverse workforce.
A good Engineer who happens to be a woman: I work for Google. :/
Society: Nice! (Did she make it at Google because of gender diversity program?)
It was Google's announcement for gender diverse workforce that created hostile work environment for women because now everyone, including other women, doubt if an engineer, who happens to be woman, made it because of the diversity program.
Google fired the whistle-blower. They shot the messenger.
Shouldn't motivation count? Shouldn't liking something, wanting something count? Would you do a good job if you don't like your job, think it was sold to you? Or, would you do a good job because you can't wait to go to job every morning?
Isn't what you say exactly what Damore's claim is? It's not like Caltech was rejecting women, but that women were not chasing education at Caltech. It was their decision, their choice to not go to Caltech. They were making choices on their own that had impact on how numbers at Caltech panned out. It's good to advertise to new potential candidates to join the college.
Has anyone spoken to women who joined Caltech only because of the hard sell that they did, later to drop out and do something else?
Why can't we trust women to make the decision about their career?
Amazon hired someone from car manufacturing to build the data centers. https://www.wired.com/2013/02/james-hamilton-amazon/ I can get behind that completely, it makes sense. Google wanting more of certain gender doesn't make sense to me.
We are talking about this, my friend, I hold no ill will towards you nor do I accuse you of any wrongdoing. If I had said something with "you", it was about the argument on the table.
>I claim no special knowledge. I think that's true of both of us.
Agreed.
>I speculate, what if the existing bias is actually excluding 80% of the women. A reasonable response is, "Yeah that would be awful, we should do something about it in that case".
The speculation is that the bias exists, and is based on gender, is significant to skew decision making, and is widespread i.e. held by majority, strong enough to warrant an active adjustment. Now, we are not talking about Saudi Arabia or Somalia, we are talking about the most liberal place in the USA i.e. California. The same google employees that support Democrats in droves, wanted first woman president, and call themselves progressives, and rally for immigrant and refugee rights and environment protection.
There are two things being assumed:
One: that there is bias that holds every woman inferior to any man. This assumption needs to be proven. That is insulting, ridiculous claim against the educated human beings that work at Google, many with wives, daughters, sisters, who call themselves liberal progressives, who would stand up for equality for all.
Two: that the demographic of google employment is because of this bias and nothing else, or at least significantly because of this bias. This assumption needs to be proven.
If you can't prove these two assumptions, you can't act as if the injustice has happened and needs to be corrected at once.
Who else would you let make same argument? For what issue would you allow them to draw same conclusions, based on as much proof, and demand similar action?
How about hijab wearing women vs. non-hijab wearing woman? Need equal or demographically equal representation? How about for-vaccination and anti-vaccination, need equal representation? How about evolution-deniers, need equal representation?
Equality for all doesn't mean 13% black, 80% white and 7% Hispanic, 33% Christian, 8% Jew, 20% Atheist, 45% woman, 40% man, 10% Trans, 10% LGBT, 60% straigt, 20% asexual. You would have put a job Ad for Muslim Gay Woman that is Hispanic. That is quota system.
Equality means it doesn't matter whether your name is Jen, Jose, Jerry or Jasmine, you are selected because of what you bring to the table for the job.
>I speculate
A kid who loves programming, wants to work for google, has taken college education that is needed, has spent countless hours of his own to learn new things, he gets rejected because Google wants to up the women count. That kid never realizes what happened to him as he walks out of the interview. That is wrong. I am not willing to do that because of a speculation.
Let me say this about Damore's claims... he asked for diversity of ideas. I disagree. Google is not in the business of having equal number of conservatives and progressives within its ranks. It has nothing to do with the job of programming gmail or youtube. Workplaces are last hangouts for people where they come together, outside of their individual bubble. We do not need to politicize the workplace. Don't Ask Don't Tell, for political inclinations, at workplace.
Nobody would object to a company seeking candidates by turning over every rock out there. More power to you. The objection is using gender as a criteria in hiring decisions.
>one could argue that there is a societal imbalance in the development of the talent pool, and attempt to correct that.
But, it doesn't. It actually incentivizes keeping the imbalance because it guarantees advantage in outcome based on that imbalance in development of the talent pool.
One shouldn't "attempt" something that affects lives in this significant way. You better be 100% sure about it. If there is doubt then fall back to individuality, not "group" think.
>What I'm saying is that a company can put effort into expanding the diversity of their employee base in ways other than strict quotas and hiring discrimination, and without lowering the standard of the employees they hire. Is that really so bad?
You haven't given an example of "expanding diversity" without "quotas". When you say you want to "expand", by definition you are not happy with existing representations and want to change it to another higher % point. That higher % is what I call quota.
Let's imagine 70/30 split between women and men at Google. You would like it to be 50/50. You would like it to be 50/50 in five years. That means hiring has to be lopsided for next five years, may be 10/90 in favor of women to get to 50/50 in 5 years. Don't you think it is discriminatory to the male engineering students who are graduating in next 5 years? Should Google fire existing male employees to keep it fair to the students who are graduating in next 5 years?
You are not hiring "women" as a group. You are hiring an individual to feel in a role, gender should not be looked at, at all. I would prefer if google conducts all interview in written format without disclosing name, hiding gender, or where the voice is scrambled so that you can't make out the gender of the interviewee.
If you claim that you know that a group based on gender deserved certain representation (80%), you are the one discriminating based on gender. What's your opinion about representation of Samoans in Google ranks? What % should they get? You have no way to back up your 80% claim.
>I'd like to see passive processes produce an equitable result too.
This is the problem. I don't think it is achievable, or worthy, to seek equitable results. Results can vary based on many factors, picking one aspect of an individual, their gender, and then asking to make it equal across the group equal to that aspect of the individual, is only going to give advantage to certain individuals of that group, individuals who may not be as handicapped by the group identity as you think. E.g. does a multi-millionaire African American lawyer's son deserve a seat at Medical school based on his race? Do the individual women who qualify at Google really represent the disadvantaged representatives of groups based on "gender"? Is Dianne Green who heads Google Cloud part of this disadvantaged group?
Equity in access to opportunity is what I can definitely agree. Let's strive to make education needed to qualify for a job at Google available at fingertips of as many kids as we can across the entire globe.
>But in the mean time, the car is pulling to the left, so I steer slightly right to compensate.
The corporate america and its leaders with their fiefdoms already exercise high control over the fate of the individual employees to work there. What if you are wrong and you over correct the car and crash it?
Do not discriminate at all. Define job requirements for what makes a good candidate for the job and then hire for those skills and abilities, no matter what race, gender or religion.
The employers are not supposed to discriminate based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation.
An externally enforced gender diversity is discrimination.
If a company has 100 programming jobs, decides to keep 50 for one specific gender, the company has created discriminatory hiring practice. It has discriminated based on gender.
Damore challenged this discrimination and got sacked. I think he can easily make a legal case for discrimination. If Google had said that they wanted 50/50 gender based representation at the level above Damore's title, then he clearly has a standing. Any male who was denied employment at Google has a standing to know if he was denied because of gender quotas.
Damore's argument is to not take gender into account in hiring practices at all. "Diversity" policies are, at the base of their argument, asking for discriminatory hiring practices.
There is no "diversity" law or mandate. If Google can define a diversity goal for some chosen slicing of the population into groups, may be based on race, may be based on gender, may be based on sexual orientation, may be based on height, and then goes on to seek equality of representation between those groups, then would it OK if some other company define equality based on if you are right handed or left handed? What if someone claims that all major religions should be equally represented in the workforce?
Is the 50/50 split based on gender mean that the company is done with being "diverse"? Which new grouping would then stake claim at equality?
Does Google believe in gender fluidity or do they believe in being cis-gendered? What if male engineers claim to be a female at the time of hiring, claiming gender fluidity, is Google going to get into business of keeping someone honest about what their gender is?
Treat everyone as individual, based on the individuals abilities and choices. Assuming "diversity" goals to ensure equality of outcome by some arbitrary definition of a "group" is by definition discrimination. Individuals, not "group" based on race, religion or gender.
Should Disney be forced to make movies with equal prince and princess lead roles? How about equal number of movies across all religions? Equal number of movies across all races?
Please show me where I am wrong on this. I would like to have correct view on this issue.
Go Germany!
It had, for ages.
>Youtube also has freedom of speech. They have the freedom to filter and compile videos that they like and only show those.
Sure they do. I wish they were honest about their political ideology before they touted the platform for all to come and participate.
>It's my website after all, I am allowed to control what is on it.
Sure you are. I just wish you had advertised as such before content creators invested time and money into the platform, creating user base for you. That's a bait and switch, no different than Apache to AGPL license change on 27.8.3 version of your successful GitHub project.
A private entity and a public corporation and government are three different levels of individual discriminatory behavior. A private person or business can employ any discriminatory practice they see fit, as you yourself say. A government is held at highest standard of equality for all. A publicly traded corporation is somewhere in between the government and a private citizen.
>As such, every non-monetizable video hurts YouTube's bottom line.
Even every non-monetized video is still eyes on the screen for Google. NetFlix claims to compete with books & libraries for time of the day from its viewers. Yeah, Google may not show Ad on that video but the next one in autoplay/recommended list is still going to ring the cash register. It is actually better for Google because they may very well show Ads but not pay the De-Monetized content creators, videos that they created actually act as leads to youtube. These political videos is where a reader is sent to youtube from non-youtube sites, which is much more valuable to google and they are getting away by not paying anything for that. Leading video is much more valuable to google than a video in auto-play list. Not pay for leads but get paid for Ads on subsequent videos, very nice business model win-win Google developed for itself.
Are you sure you are sold on right outcome of the baker/LGBT wedding-cake case? How about a pharmacist not telling correct/all options based on their theology?
How about a publicly traded corporation? Do they have a mandate to treat people equally? If they are picking a political viewpoint and removing customers because of it, what makes you think that their hiring practices are fair?
Google has a religion now, it has been baptized in the religion of intolerant left. Google is now theocratic, it will not allow blasphemous talk that challenges its religion.
Google claimed to champion Net-Neutrality, don't open the packet, they said to the ISPs. They want to resist opening of TCP/IP packet but when it comes to content of the videos, they want to play God. TCP/IP packet or Video, let the legal system take its course, let authorities tell you to ban something, don't play God on the platform that is valuable because of the sum number of people on it. YouTube is a social network, its value comes from people participating in it, treat the people equally and be an neutral steward of the platform technology, don't push ideology. Anyway, Google has damaged its image too much now. It will never be seen with same affection again, at least not by me.
Jokes aside, why does it matter that Advertisers are not choosing certain 'unpalatable' bubbles to not be associated with those channels, that's perfectly fine.
You seem to be concerned about extremist videos making money, I don't care about that at all. I just want all videos to be available unless legal system demands its removal after due process. Present sanitized content by default, present all content if explicitly requested, where an action from user says they want to see offending content.
Advertisers should be allowed to chose the channels that they advertise on. Some may choose to advertise on default channel before the content is flagged. Let the buyer make the decision. Why is YouTube giving in to certain vocal Ad buyers to decide for entire Ad market?
It's not like the AI has absolute idea of what is 'extremist' content, it's just enforcing someone idea of what it is. AI is trained on data, and whoever labeled that data is the person/s who are winning here.
I think a good strong case can be made to advertisers that their ad will only be served to people opting into a certain bubble. Or reverse of that i.e. show my Ads to all people except those who are in this bubble. Inclusion list and exclusion list.