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

Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 187 posts

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#31

Post by DuskStar »

xapata wrote: post #26
DuskStar wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather have the neo-Nazis spewing their bullshit out in public, where everyone can see how stupid it is. Driving something underground only makes it more attractive in the end - after all, if it was wrong The Man wouldn't need to suppress it, right?

Maybe. It's good to try an experiment to find out what the results are. They can always revert policies.

Arguably, the backlash from prior instances of political suppression is part of why we have the Orange Idiot as POTUS.

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#32

Post by mythrwy »

jscott0918 wrote: post #17

This is a terrifying step for the internet. These kinds of step lay the groundwork for censorship but fail to consider the impact of these changes in the event that the bad guys come into power or gain influence of these management systems.

Why is it terrifying for the "internet"?

It's an action by Google, not the internet. If Google is the "internet" then maybe they shouldn't be.

There isn't anything stopping folks from setting up alternative video hosting/social network sites.

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#33

Post by mythrwy »

DuskStar wrote: post #23
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's surely better than the current situation of literal neo-Nazis openly talking on YouTube about “white genocide” and how the “Jewish question” must be “solved”, without Google seemingly so much as batting an eyelid.

I'd rather have the neo-Nazis spewing their bullshit out in public, where everyone can see how stupid it is. Driving something underground only makes it more attractive in the end - after all, if it was wrong The Man wouldn't need to suppress it, right?

"spewing their bullshit out in public, where everyone can see how stupid it is"

And IP addresses can be logged :)

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#34

Post by f4rker »

Fluid_Mechanics wrote: post #21

Radicalization is a very real issue as we're getting ever more entrenched in our curated echo-chambers - I'm glad they're taking a stand. Unfortunately I fear the damage has already been done, and these policy changes will almost certainly push newly-popularized radicals onto platforms Google has no meaningful influence over.

ya these changes are about 7 years late, give or take

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#35

Post by Retra »

DuskStar wrote: post #18

"Third, we will be taking a tougher stance on videos that do not clearly violate our policies — for example, videos that contain inflammatory religious or supremacist content. In future these will appear behind an interstitial warning and they will not be monetised, recommended or eligible for comments or user endorsements. That means these videos will have less engagement and be harder to find. We think this strikes…

No judgement is not good judgement.

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#36

Post by f4rker »

Google owns its servers - they can do whatever they want with them.

You dont have a "right" to use google, youtube, etc.

Also, you dont HAVE to use them.

Given this - obviously hate groups do not have a "right" to upload whatever they want to Google services and servers.

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#37

Post by zdean »

xapata wrote: post #22
DuskStar wrote: post #18

"Third, we will be taking a tougher stance on videos that do not clearly violate our policies — for example, videos that contain inflammatory religious or supremacist content. In future these will appear behind an interstitial warning and they will not be monetised, recommended or eligible for comments or user endorsements. That means these videos will have less engagement and be harder to find. We think this strikes…

That's the status quo. One could argue nearly anything is political content, or art. They're announcing that they're going to draw the line differently, not that they're drawing a line for the first time.

"... extremely offensive viewpoints."

I imagine it'll be a very fuzzy line that they draw.

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#38

Post by DuskStar »

xapata wrote: post #22
DuskStar wrote: post #18

"Third, we will be taking a tougher stance on videos that do not clearly violate our policies — for example, videos that contain inflammatory religious or supremacist content. In future these will appear behind an interstitial warning and they will not be monetised, recommended or eligible for comments or user endorsements. That means these videos will have less engagement and be harder to find. We think this strikes…

That's the status quo. One could argue nearly anything is political content, or art. They're announcing that they're going to draw the line differently, not that they're drawing a line for the first time.

There are Leftist movements in the US that are arguably just as violent as those on the alt-Right. What's the chance that these policies apply to both sides equally? Given the history, I'd say not much. And I don't think that's a good thing.

EDIT: Unless someone is saying that AntiFa ISN'T violent?

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#39

Post by SCHiM »

killjoywashere wrote: post #16
SCHiM wrote: post #5

Personally I'm opposed to this, assuming google's goal with these steps is to protect open societies. Not because I think you should be able to post content without restrictions, but because I think it serves society better to get desensitised to this type of violent content. In the context of 'protecting' society: IMO it's better to protect your society by removing or blocking blatant propaganda, but I don't think t…

It's not the blood and gore that we can't handle. It's the psychological manipulation. They're using the same psychological tricks that Trump used, that Colgate uses. That every advertiser uses. But now it's war. This is the new war: the war for the mind of man itself.

That's all the more reason to harden it, not to weaken our collective defences. If you accept my stance that repeated exposure leads to resistance/strengthening of your mental barriers.

Of course in the case of more subtle manipulation I guess you also have to be aware of the fact that the manipulation is happening. In such a case I imagine one cannot rely on a gradual hardening because exposure alone.

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#40

Post by dsfyu404ed »

nabla9 wrote: post #29

In the west terrorism works trough media exposure. Fighting it in media is good strategy. Violence itself is ridiculously low volume per capita. If traditional media would step in, it would be major win. Instead of having symbiotic relationship with terrorism, where they hype up the terror, they could stick to reporting the facts and situation and not providing non-stop terror-porn entertainment to audience. Once peo…

>If traditional media would step in, it would be major win. Instead of having symbiotic relationship with terrorism, where they hype up the terror, they could stick to reporting the facts and situation and not providing non-stop terror-porn entertainment to audience.

Once people realize that terrorism just one small risk among other must bigger risks (like high rise buildings with flammable material) they stop fearing it and the terrorism stops being effective. It will never completely vanish, but it will not attract radicals as it used to.

x2. Traditional media outlets are a massive force multiplier for anyone attempting to terrorize through violence. I understand they have an economic interest in hyping up that sort of thing but maximizing the visibility and publicity of a terrorist act is helping them, not hurting them.

Post reply on HN