Google, Facebook quietly move toward automatic blocking of “extremist” videos • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by Dylan16807 » Sun, Jun 26, 2016, 3:33 PM UTC

putaside wrote: post #50

vonklaus wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_bomb#Design

If you honestly think trivial information on explosives is going to cause radicalization then you are insane.

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

#92

Post by jaredklewis » Sun, Jun 26, 2016, 3:46 PM UTC

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…

What about historic works that advocate such? What about Mein Kampf? Communist Manifesto?

Also, the US military claims responsibility for civilian deaths quite often. Are their communications ok?

What about communication from North Korean government? Saudi Arabia?

My point is that there are a lot of morally repugnant groups around, and I wonder if your filter is fair in application.

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

#93

Post by cpncrunch » Sun, Jun 26, 2016, 4:08 PM UTC

abtinf wrote: post #64

cpncrunch wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please cite a video where Trump says the US should deport anyone other than illegal aliens.

Sorry, I meant prevent immigration of muslims.

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

#94

Post by cpncrunch » Sun, Jun 26, 2016, 4:12 PM UTC

jimmywanger wrote: post #58

cpncrunch wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what exactly is your solution? Are you happy with facebook leaving up nasty cyberbullying, which then results in people killing themselves? What about people posting and sharing plans to blow up schools? Or how about if I posted something on facebook saying that jimmywanger is a pedophile, and your neighbours saw it and then drove you out of your home? A lot of these things are covered by libel, cyberbullying and…

My solution is just to let people post stuff that is legal (with existing statues). "Hate speech", "cyberbullying" are both ill defined terms that can apply to both every type of speech and no type of speech. It's interesting how quickly you leap to suicide, explosives, and pedophilia as your examples. Those are all absolute worst case scenarios, and all these things are currently illegal. Nip this in the bud? Is thi…

>My solution is just to let people post stuff that is legal (with existing statues).

That simply doesn't work. Are you familiar with any unmoderated forums? It's fine if you just want anarchy, e.g. 4chan. However if want a place like HN where people can actually discuss reasonably, you have to have some kind of moderation.

Are you aware of the huge amount of moderation that already happens on youtube? A customer of mine got their account put on probation for posting a test video of a firefox session that was mostly static. I'm actually quite glad in a way that they are doing this, as it means they might finally stop all of the "click here to view the full episode/movie" spam that litters youtube today.

>Nip this in the bud? Is this minority report?

I was referring to blocking illegal content before it reaches that point.

If you want a forum where people can post anything, you're welcome to set one up. I'm not sure it will be terribly useful though.

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

#95

Post by unfathomable » Sun, Jun 26, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

You could say the same thing about middle eastern war movies propagated by media corporations and military contracts in order to create a stereotypical image of cultures across the seas. In an attempt to sign up more military and invade formerly sovereign middle eastern nations.

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

#96

Post by Animats » Sun, Jun 26, 2016, 8:10 PM UTC

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…

"Or publicly praised"

No. After the fact, that's a freedom of speech issue.

The US has survived two centuries of people mouthing off. It hasn't been a big problem. Censorship, and punishing people for thoughtcrime, is worse.

"Maybe they is not evil. Maybe they is just enemies." - Poul Anderson

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

#97

Post by shrugger2 » Sun, Jun 26, 2016, 11:12 PM UTC

jaredklewis wrote: post #92

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…

What about historic works that advocate such? What about Mein Kampf? Communist Manifesto? Also, the US military claims responsibility for civilian deaths quite often. Are their communications ok? What about communication from North Korean government? Saudi Arabia? My point is that there are a lot of morally repugnant groups around, and I wonder if your filter is fair in application.

Are you implying that the US military is morally repugnant?

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

#98

Post by chrismcb » Sun, Jun 26, 2016, 11:34 PM UTC

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.

Terrorism is about terror and fear, not necessarily hurting and killing.

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

#99

Post by jimmywanger » Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 3:13 AM UTC

gbog wrote: post #88

jimmywanger wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You misunderstand my point. I'm not talking ethics, I'm talking about recursive definitions.

You posit that tolerance is good and intolerance is bad. And you don't give good definitions for either word. That's literally begging the question.

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

#100

Post by eli_gottlieb » Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 3:23 AM UTC

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?

No, of course not. None of those have the most important component of extremist ideology: leftism. Except possibly for Dabiq, they're all respectable, mainstream politics -- you know, right-wing.