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

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

#101

Post by eli_gottlieb » Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 3:24 AM UTC

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?

>People protesting against austerity and gentrification have broken windows of banks and stores. Is this terrorism since in the end civilians own those?

No, it's "terrorism" because the purpose of "terrorism" laws is to crush domestic political dissent rather than to actually ward off foreign ideological militants.

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

#102

Post by gbog » Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 4:13 AM UTC

jimmywanger wrote: post #99

gbog wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But we are not talking about formal logic here, we are talking about ethics. We use words that have a meaning, and we all know how to recognize a "sign of tolerance" and it's opposite. There is no need for a formal definition, which is not possible anyway.

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

#103

Post by dforrestwilson » Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 11:58 AM UTC

Equivalent to pretending that Hitler never existed.

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

#104

Post by jimmywanger » Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 3:26 PM UTC

gbog wrote: post #102

jimmywanger wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But we are not talking about formal logic here, we are talking about ethics. We use words that have a meaning, and we all know how to recognize a "sign of tolerance" and it's opposite. There is no need for a formal definition, which is not possible anyway.

Incorrect. We're talking about a computer system now, and you need formal definitions.

The statement "we all know how to..." is problematic. Do we buy into the "we all" that comprises the west, or the "we all" that is east asia (which, btw is far more repressive. See the great firewall of China)?