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

61–70 of 187 posts

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

#61

Post by mythrwy »

krapp wrote: post #58
mythrwy wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is Google's right to do. Let ISIS or White Nazi rebirth club set their own video hosting services up instead of piggybacking on something they are ultimately trying to destroy.

Ok, fair enough. It's Google's sandbox, they can do what they like. So let's say ISIS and the Neo-Nazis get their own video hosting services, since there probably aren't enough of either to make that infeasible, and they already have plenty of venues for hosting their own material. Then what? What problem does removing that content from Google actually solve? The internet detects censorship as damage and routes aroun…

I'm surprised that would be asked.

Google removing or otherwise taking steps to suppress this content very obviously (partially) solves the "most important" problem.

And that "most important" problem is Google being accessory or providing platform which is a legal and public relations liability.

Notice who the author of the article is. Not some engineer. Not a public relations person. Nope. It's Kent Walker, General Council. And that tells you a lot about the "why".

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

#62

Post by kjksf »

DuskStar wrote: post #51
ithinkinstereo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Also worth noting that the videos were probably taken down less for "bullying" and more because they made the protesters look horrible, too.

Make up your mind.

By your definition(s), YouTube can't possibly handle inflammatory leftist material.

If they don't remove it, they're clearly leftist biased.

If the do remove it, they're also clearly leftist biased, but for a different reason.

You can't have it both ways.

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

#64

Post by DuskStar »

flashman wrote: post #50
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?

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 kno…

But don't the neo-Nazis and ISIS already have visibility? Again, all I think this does is add the allure of the forbidden fruit.

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

#65

Post by weberc2 »

avip wrote: post #19
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.

It's less "terrifying" than the current alternative, where people can openly support various forms of extreme violence, get away with it, and monetize on the way. Mind you this "internet" is private biz. This is a pretty obvious "don't vomit on my rug" case. Don't like it? Find another party.

If cable companies are monopolies, surely Google is as well.

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

#66

Post by megous »

Retra wrote: post #55
megous wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're confusing is with ought . Violence is only acceptable in very reasoned, measured manners, and only to achieve clear and decisive goals. Hate is not acceptable anywhere. Outrage, maybe.

> You're confusing is with ought.

How so? I don't see it.

edit: Anyway. There's a lot of hate towards real or believed enemies of the west. It's easily visible online in news websites' comment sections, on social media, etc. It is somewhat rare to see people standing up against it. Even on platforms, where you need to provide gov. ID to be able to discuss, and your name is visible to others, people feel perfectly fine to spew hate against muslims, ISIS, or whatever in very non-measured ways.

My point with the previous comment is, that it is important to realize the western hate and violence too and not to brush it away, because it's very significant in its effect on peoples lives.

I'm not from the US, so it might be different in different countries.

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

#67

Post by Retra »

DuskStar wrote: post #31
xapata wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Many people experience political suppression nearly everywhere online simply because they do not know how to communicate in a civil and honest manner. The backlash is not due to political suppression by companies, it is due to the basic fact that they are not welcomed in most online communities. Official censorship policies tend to reinforce in them a belief in the conspiratorial nature of such rejection, but it is not the cause of the rejection. Nor is it actual evidence of conspiracy.

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

#68

Post by DuskStar »

kjksf wrote: post #62
DuskStar wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also worth noting that the videos were probably taken down less for "bullying" and more because they made the protesters look horrible, too.

Make up your mind. By your definition(s), YouTube can't possibly handle inflammatory leftist material. If they don't remove it, they're clearly leftist biased. If the do remove it, they're also clearly leftist biased, but for a different reason. You can't have it both ways.

IMO, the entire situation with Evergreen College is closer to being an alt-Right propaganda piece than a leftist one. Screaming at and demanding the resignation of a professor essentially for saying that "On a college campus, one's right to speak - or to be - must never be based on skin color" looks pretty bad, you know? The fact it was produced by leftists who need a far better grasp of optics really doesn't change that.

Removing things that make one side look bad - but not similarly doing the same for the other side - is bias, yes. Unless you think YouTube would have removed videos taken by the protesters if the situation was reversed, and it was a neo-Nazi protest that was looking horrible?

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

#69

Post by elihu »

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…

I have mixed feelings about this and I share your concern about it not being applied evenly.

I think what bothers me the most, though, is that we're too reliant on one company to be the gatekeeper to the vast majority of video content online. I'd feel better if there were more competitors in this space, and if YouTube was overly restrictive of certain content, you could just move to a different service and have a similar experience.

I can't really blame YouTube for being "too successful", but this is one of those cases where being a near-monopoly can put a company into an awkward position.

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

#70

Post by tyingq »

Retra wrote: post #59
tyingq wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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...." They go on to say that this type of speech won't be exactly blocked, but basically made harder to find. It's not quite big brother, but I suspect nothing like that happens all at once. "Inflammatory religious" in particular, feels like a pr…

Inflammatory: (especially of speech or writing) arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings. Religious speech is not inflammatory just because some people strongly disagree with it.

Yes, but something that sounds innocuous to members of one religion can be inflammatory to another.

I didn't say all religious speech was inflammatory either. I said most religions have some speech that could be considered so. I really don't get your point.

Post reply on HN