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

41–50 of 187 posts

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

#41

Post by blfr »

I don't believe that there is a problem with terrorism online or that such a thing as online terror exists. Only the most feeble can be terrorised through the screen.

The problem is that there are terrorists among us who are willing to bomb, stab, or run people down with a truck. That there are entire communities where this either receives support or is at least tolerated.

It has very little to do with technology. They don't do it because they saw an ISIS video on YouTube or a post on Facebook. I doubt this is even a minor factor. Hodgkinson watched The Rachel Maddow Show. On cable.

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

#42

Post by ithinkinstereo »

DuskStar wrote: post #38
xapata wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The recent controversies at Evergreen College provide an illustrative example. Videos of student protestors bullying professors, ala Maoist Cultural Revolution style, were taken down due to issues with "bullying".

It's worth noting that these were original videos uploaded to YT by the protestors themselves!

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

#43

Post by weirdstuff »

Retra wrote: post #35
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.

It's simply none at all, right?

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

#44

Post by novia »

AlphaWeaver wrote: post #15

Interesting that they didn't address specific steps they'd take to protect their content reviewing teams... Sounds like it would be appreciated, especially in the context of the recent issue at Facebook.

especially in the context of the recent issue at Facebook.

I'm possibly out of the loop, what happened at facebook? Are you talking about the fake news fiasco?

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

#45

Post by initstick »

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.

We don't know what we don't know... There already is censorship. The worst prison is the one where you can't see the bars.

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

#46

Post by eplanit »

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…

It won't be, because "inflammatory" (esp. juxtaposed to "religious"), and "supremacist" are subjective. Unpopular viewpoints, especially regarding religion and race, can easily be branded and thus squelched.

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

#47

Post by WatchDog »

This is clearly in response to the call from several world leaders for more participation from google et al. in combating terrorism online.

Theresa May, as well as some Australian leaders have made very general statements that the big tech companies are not doing enough to fight terrorism.

I expect that these statements are merely a prelude some announcement of legislation, seeking even greater government powers and access to googles data.

I imagine law enforcement would rather have detailed identity information on the people consuming the content, rather than simply having the content removed more efficiently.

So while removing propaganda and violent videos from youtube is just going to drive the traffic elsewhere, at least googles action may help resist further government encroachment on our online privacy.

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

#49

Post by megous »

remotehack wrote: post #25
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.

Supporting violence and hate isn't acceptable in any other format, why should the Internet be excluded.

It absolutely is acceptable. There's a lot of hate being stirred towards ISIS, and violence is supported quite openly in the media, and also used in the real world.

The west has enemies and stirs up hate and uses violence to target them, adding to the mayhem in the middle east, killing 10s of thousands of people every year.

Violence is very acceptable for the western democracies. You have to be willfully ignorant not to see this, after the last two years and 70000 people killed by the coalition during that time.

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

#50

Post by flashman »

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?

The problem with allowing neo-Nazis to spew their bullshit alongside the Diet Coke and Mentos videos is that it creates a normative appearance: "this isn't being removed, so there is something tolerable about it, so maybe it's not so bad."

> Driving something underground only makes it more attractive

See, I think you're wrong, and that the secret to attraction is visibility. As an online advertising company would know.

Post reply on HN