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

71–80 of 104 posts

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

#71

Post by icebraining »

gbog wrote: post #65
mcphage wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 both ways. That's why articles like these are being written—it's the companies letting everyone know that they're changing their policies. They used to be more laissez-faire, didn't like the results, and now are starting to rethink their decision…

Yes, but they will not be too clear about their elephant in the room: this will have demonstrated that free speech is not possible. Many here seem to believe in free speech, freedom to express anything, is an absolute. But it is not and cannot be. Tolerance has limits, and its limits is intolerance. Tolerance can happen only inside a framework, a common ground where the parts agree on some values, agree to tolerate e…

Why would you say it's not "possible"? Clearly it is: we didn't have those restrictions, yet people spoke.

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

#72

Post by Animats »

What's "extremist"? Dabiq?[1] Stormfront? Donald Trump? The National Rifle Association? Fox News?

It's worth reading Dabiq to hear what ISIS has to say. Know your enemy. They're quite clear about wanting to kill everyone who doesn't support their strict interpretation of Islam. (ISIS cannot have allies; they consider that religiously prohibited.) The latest issue also includes a long article about why the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has abandoned strict Islam and is now an enemy. None of this is likely to recruit anybody who isn't already a fanatic of some kind. Unfortunately, there are those in search of something to be fanatical about. Even if they can turn only 0.004% of the population into fighters for their cause (that's roughly their recruiting success rate in the Western world), that's a success for them.

Dabiq mentions their 10 videos for this month, and searches for them turn up articles about them, but not playable versions of the videos. Even the one linked to "archive.org" isn't coming up. Unclear if this is censorship.

[1] https://www.clarionproject.org/docs/Dabiq-Issue-14.pdf

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

#73

Post by jimmywanger »

gbog wrote: post #65
mcphage wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 both ways. That's why articles like these are being written—it's the companies letting everyone know that they're changing their policies. They used to be more laissez-faire, didn't like the results, and now are starting to rethink their decision…

Yes, but they will not be too clear about their elephant in the room: this will have demonstrated that free speech is not possible. Many here seem to believe in free speech, freedom to express anything, is an absolute. But it is not and cannot be. Tolerance has limits, and its limits is intolerance. Tolerance can happen only inside a framework, a common ground where the parts agree on some values, agree to tolerate e…

You have to tolerate everything but intolerance?

Have you read Godel, Escher, Bach?

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

#74

Post by icebraining »

exstudent2 wrote: post #45
dave2000 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Twit…

It's more "establishment media" than "left-wing media", though. The idea that Clinton is left-wing is just amusing, nothing more than an US peculiarity. The only leftish party the US seems to have left is the Green, and the mainstream media certainly doesn't promote them.

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

#75

Post by dave2000 »

exstudent2 wrote: post #45
dave2000 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Twit…

"I see the media fully supporting Clinton while bashing Trump. That's left wing bias in my mind"

Anyone who thinks Clinton is left wing is just totally out of touch with reality.

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

#76

Post by downandout »

Animats wrote: post #72

What's "extremist"? Dabiq?[1] Stormfront? Donald Trump? The National Rifle Association? Fox News? It's worth reading Dabiq to hear what ISIS has to say. Know your enemy. They're quite clear about wanting to kill everyone who doesn't support their strict interpretation of Islam. (ISIS cannot have allies; they consider that religiously prohibited.) The latest issue also includes a long article about why the Muslim Brot…

What's "extremist"? Dabiq?[1] Stormfront? Donald Trump? The National Rifle Association? Fox News

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."

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

#77

Post by ohthehugemanate »

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…

So, a founding thought pattern of liberal democracy is that we prefer to allow some false negatives rather than punishing false positives. In justice, we prefer to let some bad people walk free, than to wrongfully imprison. Hence habeas corpus. In privacy, we prefer to let some people do bad things in secret, rather than violate one innocent person's privacy. Hence warrant requirements. In speech, we prefer to let some assholes say/print terrible things, rather than let one innocent thought be censored. Hence free press.

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."

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

#78

Post by dpc59 »

downandout wrote: post #76
Animats wrote: post #72

What's "extremist"? Dabiq?[1] Stormfront? Donald Trump? The National Rifle Association? Fox News? It's worth reading Dabiq to hear what ISIS has to say. Know your enemy. They're quite clear about wanting to kill everyone who doesn't support their strict interpretation of Islam. (ISIS cannot have allies; they consider that religiously prohibited.) The latest issue also includes a long article about why the Muslim Brot…

What's "extremist"? Dabiq?[1] Stormfront? Donald Trump? The National Rifle Association? Fox News 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…

People protesting against austerity and gentrification have broken windows of banks and stores. Is this terrorism since in the end civilians own those? If it is where do you draw the line on censorship of the people who want the same things but were never involved in those crimes against property?

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

#79

Post by TrickzOnU »

cpncrunch wrote: post #56
rahkiin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do agree the west is more subtle. But aren't some westerners calling up 'getting rid of the islam/muslims' and that sorts? When does such qualify as hate speech? I just don't know :(

Well, Trump isn't saying we should kill them, only deport them. I think that is objectionable, but I don't think it meets the criteria for hate speech. There is obviously a line, and Trump hasn't quite crossed it yet.

No, trump has not said that -- but plenty of conservative commentators in the US have said that. It will be interesting whether those videos get banned too.

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

#80

Post by downandout »

dpc59 wrote: post #78
downandout wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's "extremist"? Dabiq?[1] Stormfront? Donald Trump? The National Rifle Association? Fox News 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…

People protesting against austerity and gentrification have broken windows of banks and stores. Is this terrorism since in the end civilians own those? If it is where do you draw the line on censorship of the people who want the same things but were never involved in those crimes against property?

I consider it terrorism when the intent of the act is to hurt or kill people. I think most people, beyond those being deliberately pedantic, define it the same way.
Post reply on HN