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

81–90 of 104 posts

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

#81

Post by arximboldi »

downandout wrote: post #80
dpc59 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First, that distinction is not so clear for many because the word "terrorism" is constantly banalized by conservative politicians that use it to attack protesters of all kinds. We have seen a lot of this during the last few years, where austerity protesters, mobs preventing unfair evictions, etc. have all been called terrorists by right wing politicians and media.

The other problem with your definition is that, while it may help distinguishing terrorist actions from other actions, it does not help drawing the line on what kind of communications "are terrorist" or "promote terrorism" to censor? There are many tricky questions, for example:

- Do you censor everything that a terrorist group says, or only whatever explicitly advocates terrorist tactics?

- Do you censor sympathizers with the terrorist group?

- Do you censor people that share the ideas of the terrorist group? Even if they do not defend them with violence? But what if they do not promote violence but they do not publicly condemn the terrorist group?

Etc, etc.

As you can see, the question is tricky. In Spain this debate has been alive for years with regards to the basque independentist group ETA. This was often a mess, with even certain independentist newspapers being prohibited at times. Sometimes these actions made ETA recruiting easier indeed--it's easy to argue that violence is your only alternative when your political voice is censored. In most absurd cases, people that are not even independentist or anything alike are being prosecuted for posting jokes involving ETA on Twitter.

So, it's not about being pedantic. Discriminating what kind of media promotes terrorism and not is hard. The political implications of censoring are huge, and there can be unintended consequences. It basically means drawing a clear political line on the limits of freedom of speech.

I would be afraid if these lines are drawn by private entities, secretly, without a public debate on what is tolerable or not, and with the public not even knowing whether they are being censored or not.

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

#82

Post by downandout »

arximboldi wrote: post #81
downandout wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First, that distinction is not so clear for many because the word "terrorism" is constantly banalized by conservative politicians that use it to attack protesters of all kinds. We have seen a lot of this during the last few years, where austerity protesters, mobs preventing unfair evictions, etc. have all been called terrorists by right wing politicians and media. The other problem with your definition is that, while…

You raise some good points, but again I think most of your concerns can be addressed using generally accepted common sense. Yes, I think that everything that a terror group says should be blocked, and yes I think sympathizers should be treated as members of the group when it comes to communications.

Let's also remember that in the context of Google and Facebook, we aren't talking about censorship by the government, or private organizations setting laws that all citizens must abide by. These are private organizations that are free to censor anything they wish, and to define their own terms of service. What they are doing seems to be a socially responsible move. People that are unhappy with these services are free to publish their stuff elsewhere.

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

#84

Post by kabouseng »

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…

So as an example, block all content regarding Nelson Mandela. He did authorize the church street bomb[1] and the planting of various landmines on civilian farmers roads.

Nelson Mandela and the anc was classified as terrorists by the CIA in the 80s, so also no more entry into the USA for most of the current government of South Africa...

[1] http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-...

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

#85

Post by arethuza »

downandout wrote: post #80
dpc59 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What if civilian populations are explicitly targeted during a war or during the planning for a conflict?

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

#86

Post by tdkl »

downandout wrote: post #82
arximboldi wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, that distinction is not so clear for many because the word "terrorism" is constantly banalized by conservative politicians that use it to attack protesters of all kinds. We have seen a lot of this during the last few years, where austerity protesters, mobs preventing unfair evictions, etc. have all been called terrorists by right wing politicians and media. The other problem with your definition is that, while…

You raise some good points, but again I think most of your concerns can be addressed using generally accepted common sense. Yes, I think that everything that a terror group says should be blocked, and yes I think sympathizers should be treated as members of the group when it comes to communications. Let's also remember that in the context of Google and Facebook, we aren't talking about censorship by the government, o…

Then those private organisations shouldn't advertise those services as pro free speech when it comes in handy.

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

#87

Post by exstudent2 »

dave2000 wrote: post #75
exstudent2 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I wish you had clearly stated your rather extremist views up front. Would have saved a lot of time.

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

#88

Post by gbog »

jimmywanger wrote: post #73
gbog wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I have read Paul Ricoeur, and I think it's a better entry point in ethics.

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

#89

Post by gbog »

icebraining wrote: post #71
gbog wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Free speech is only one aspect of freedom, it is possible to have free speech only within a bigger framework enabling the more general freedom.

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

#90

Post by Dylan16807 »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #68
pdkl95 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

As a citizen you have rights. Your printing press doesn't. Nevertheless, preventing a printing press from printing hinders your rights. Same with a corporation and it's owners. Nevertheless, you are correct that corporations and self-organizing groups have a large amount of power to manipulate citizens and voters. The blogger Mencius Moldbug wrote about this back in 2009 ( https://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.in…

> As a citizen you have rights. Your printing press doesn't. Nevertheless, preventing a printing press from printing hinders your rights. Same with a corporation and it's owners.

The printing press by itself is not engaged in commerce. I think the logical extension would be that if you're selling printing services, you can't discriminate based on message. But you can print whatever you choose on your own time.

Post reply on HN