Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 104 posts

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

#41

Post by VikingCoder »

jimmywanger wrote: post #25
dave2000 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's that company's site then I don't see who else has any business getting involved. Do you want someone telling you what (legal) content you can or can't show? Why?

Youtube, Facebook, Twitter all loudly trumpeted their attempts to assist "free speech", especially during the Arab Spring. And they were only doing that when what they were doing was going along with the cultural democratic zeitgeist at the time. If they were more open about "Hey, we're providing you a free service, we can shut you down if you don't conform to public opinion" that's fine also. But you can't have it b…

Of course you can, and don't be ridiculous.

You can absolutely run a company that allows users to communicate in interesting ways, and say you support freedom but also refuse to show content you don't want to.

Beheadings. Child Pornography. Instructions for making chemical weapons. Snuff films. Animal abuse. Recruiting extremists to kill innocent people from your country.

I'm really tired of idealists who refuse to accept pragmatism. If you would really run a video site that willingly hosts those things, then I have no respect for you. At all.

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

#42

Post by [deleted] »

LargeCompanies wrote: post #24

Not sure if this a good thing they would just move further underground vs. allowing it to continue and flag these accounts/send notice to law enforcement and the FBI. They supposedly track us anyway hopefully they are tracking these degenerates more then sally sue saying how much she loves joe weiner.

[deleted]

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

#44

Post by rahkiin »

putaside wrote: post #27

Google, Facebook, and especially Twitter are used by terrorist organisations for recruitment and propaganda. These videos brainwash young people into hatred of the west, incite them to leave their countries to go join a war that is not theirs, polarize, and are directly responsible for suicide attacks. Sure, information wants to be free, and all that cyberpunk jazz. At what cost? Apparently at the cost of innocent li…

That first paragraph... What if you would replace 'the west' with 'the islam'? Let's replace 'terrorist organizations' with 'organizations with weapons'. Bear with me. Then it essentially says google, facebook etc are used by military for recruitment for fighting with violence against an opposing view (sorry for my english). Isn't that what western countries do as well? What I mean to say, the difference is very hard to make. Essentially you are removing any content that opposes your (whoever pulls the string) political or religious views. And with the popularity of YT, FB and Twitter, I think that is worth thinking about. What happens if there is a conflict within a western country, whose side are those sites on?

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.

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

#45

Post by exstudent2 »

dave2000 wrote: post #31
exstudent2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The discussion is in this thread. You replied to another of my comments where I spell out why I think this is a bad idea.

Well, your argument was that trump was a right wing phenomenon caused by "left wing media shaping" but there IS no left wing media in the US as far as I can tell. The right wing/elite serving media like to pretend there is to drag the public/debate further to the right. Movements like trump are people knowing they're getting screwed but having the elite (people like Trump) blame mexicans or muslims (people with no mo…

> there IS no left wing media in the US as far as I can tell.

I think you and I disagree significantly on this foundational fact to the point where there's no use debating downstream arguments.

I see the media fully supporting Clinton while bashing Trump. That's left wing bias in my mind (regardless of my support of either candidate). Once you include online media, the left leaning bias is even more significant. Twitter in particular (I know they're not discussed in the OP) have been very aggressive about stamping out right wing speech.

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

#46

Post by pdkl95 »

dave2000 wrote: post #10
lanevorockz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, there is a fine line and it should not be decided by companies.

If it's that company's site then I don't see who else has any business getting involved. Do you want someone telling you what (legal) content you can or can't show? Why?

> Do you want someone telling you what (legal) content you can or can't show?

No. As a citizen, I have rights. Corporations do not.

I'm always amazed at this attitude that hates government power while willfully turning a blind eye to corporate power. The usual argument about governments having a monopoly on the use of force merely demonstrates the naiveté of the speaker. Corporations regularly use no only physical force but are masters at economic manipulation. With the amount of corruption and regulatory capture that now thrives in government, corporate and government power are not easily separated.

When corporations become large enough that it becomes impossible to avoid, they de facto become another layer of government. Except this layer doesn't even pretend to be democratic. With their claims that profit motive trumps all else, corporations are a layer of government that is explicitly working against the interest of the general population.

If corporations want to become so large that they are acting with the powers that are normally reserved for governments - such as being the arbiter of free speech - then they need to take on the responsibilities of acting in the public interest and protecting basic rights.

If they choose instead to act without public buy-in, then this is going to end badly. Populism is on the rise and people are starting to revolt against what they perceive are the powers that have ignored their needs for decades.

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

#47

Post by Consultant32452 »

pdkl95 wrote: post #46
dave2000 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's that company's site then I don't see who else has any business getting involved. Do you want someone telling you what (legal) content you can or can't show? Why?

> Do you want someone telling you what (legal) content you can or can't show? No. As a citizen, I have rights. Corporations do not. I'm always amazed at this attitude that hates government power while willfully turning a blind eye to corporate power. The usual argument about governments having a monopoly on the use of force merely demonstrates the naiveté of the speaker. Corporations regularly use no only physical fo…

Your post has been flagged as extremist and will now be blocked.

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

#48

Post by putaside »

rahkiin wrote: post #44
putaside wrote: post #27

Google, Facebook, and especially Twitter are used by terrorist organisations for recruitment and propaganda. These videos brainwash young people into hatred of the west, incite them to leave their countries to go join a war that is not theirs, polarize, and are directly responsible for suicide attacks. Sure, information wants to be free, and all that cyberpunk jazz. At what cost? Apparently at the cost of innocent li…

That first paragraph... What if you would replace 'the west' with 'the islam'? Let's replace 'terrorist organizations' with 'organizations with weapons'. Bear with me. Then it essentially says google, facebook etc are used by military for recruitment for fighting with violence against an opposing view (sorry for my english). Isn't that what western countries do as well? What I mean to say, the difference is very hard…

It is not about attacking/opposing political views, it is about attacking/opposing hate speech and inciting violence. If hate speech also happens to be a political view, then too bad.

Yes, Western countries are also guilty of propaganda. But they are a bit more subtle about it and do not go over the edge as often. That edge is: (inciting) violence.

This could be qualified as extremist content (if one were to be as objective as possible): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNCUeItvovs And I would be ok if that were removed.

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

#49

Post by deno »

VikingCoder wrote: post #41
jimmywanger wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube, Facebook, Twitter all loudly trumpeted their attempts to assist "free speech", especially during the Arab Spring. And they were only doing that when what they were doing was going along with the cultural democratic zeitgeist at the time. If they were more open about "Hey, we're providing you a free service, we can shut you down if you don't conform to public opinion" that's fine also. But you can't have it b…

Of course you can, and don't be ridiculous. You can absolutely run a company that allows users to communicate in interesting ways, and say you support freedom but also refuse to show content you don't want to. Beheadings. Child Pornography. Instructions for making chemical weapons. Snuff films. Animal abuse. Recruiting extremists to kill innocent people from your country. I'm really tired of idealists who refuse to a…

> You can absolutely run a company that allows users to communicate in interesting ways, and say you support freedom but also refuse to show content you don't want to.

You can say you support free speech and ban free speech you don’t like. What?

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

#50

Post by putaside »

vonklaus wrote: post #32
putaside wrote: post #27

Google, Facebook, and especially Twitter are used by terrorist organisations for recruitment and propaganda. These videos brainwash young people into hatred of the west, incite them to leave their countries to go join a war that is not theirs, polarize, and are directly responsible for suicide attacks. Sure, information wants to be free, and all that cyberpunk jazz. At what cost? Apparently at the cost of innocent li…

interesting. I would never make this trade and find it horrifying. > 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 suspec…

When "normal" citizens can find instructions on how to create IED's and pipe bombs on the surface internet, something is very very wrong. This is what causes naive easily-influenced youth to radicalize. They do not even have to seek it out on the deep web, their social feeds are filled with such extremist content.

Then when the police confiscates their computer and finds Inspire magazine on there, they are branded a terrorist and face jail. While there is a difference between curious rebellious youth and hardcore jihadists, it's very murky when there is such easy access to real damaging stuff.

Driving them underground would make anyone seeking them out a solid suspect. Right now innocent bystanders are confronted with their propaganda and may give in (whereas normally they never would).

I know these are American companies, but they are used world-wide. The bill of rights and American standards of free speech do not have to apply everywhere though. Europe faces the consequences of this unbridled free speech. You want free (hate) speech? Fine. Create your own website and host your own content. Don't (ab)use these big companies who hide behind our-algo's-could-not-find-it and do not take their responsibility, because they have so many users they can never police them all.

Real terrorists use both the surface web (for recruitment and propaganda) and the underground web (for planning attacks). No smart terrorist uses the surface web for planning. The damage of surface web propaganda far exceeds the damage of having no intel on surface web propaganda.

Post reply on HN