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

121–130 of 187 posts

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

#121

Post by vacri »

odiroot wrote: post #101
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…

Aha, so big US companies are our police now. I share your fear. The "kosher" content would be now defined by some faceless person in NY/SF.

By 'our police', do you mean 'actively curating their own content'? Do you call your local librarian a cop as well?

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

#122

Post by creepydata »

odiroot wrote: post #101
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…

Aha, so big US companies are our police now. I share your fear. The "kosher" content would be now defined by some faceless person in NY/SF.

Now? Give me a fucking break.

Big US companies, and all US companies, big and small, have always choosen, and very carefully, what sorts of content they want to distribute, what sorts of image they want to portray, what sorts of causes they want to publicly support, and what their public imagine will be. You were never able to find atheist content in a Christian bookstore, you could only buy the censored version of CDs from Walmart, you couldn't find pornography at K-Mart, The Disney Channel never broadcasted any politically incorrect material, and you couldn't buy t-shirts with "inflammatory religious or supremacist content" in Old Navy. Even the original Geocities had strong content restrictions​.

Are you loudly complaining Old Navy doesn't sell a "Hitler was right" shirt? Are you complaining about the "censorship" going on at the Museum of Fine Arts since they don't have a white supremacist exhibit?

In fact, pornography is legal and YouTube does not allow pornography. Why aren't you already up in arms about that "censorship."

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

#123

Post by freshhawk »

walshemj wrote: post #112
odiroot wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aha, so big US companies are our police now. I share your fear. The "kosher" content would be now defined by some faceless person in NY/SF.

Or more likely a minimum wage drone in a third world country

The definitions won't be outsourced, but the psychological trauma involved in doing the actual moderation certainly will be.

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

#124

Post by izacus »

vacri wrote: post #121
odiroot wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aha, so big US companies are our police now. I share your fear. The "kosher" content would be now defined by some faceless person in NY/SF.

By 'our police', do you mean 'actively curating their own content'? Do you call your local librarian a cop as well?

Local librarian doesn't dictate culture and content to the whole world.

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

#125

Post by freshhawk »

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?

So far, no they aren't. Not even close. Not that there isn't any violence from the left, but not nearly as much.

But using the left/right simplified political spectrum is a terrible metric in any case. If there was ever a time to at least use the compass metric to differentiate between authoritarian/libertarian opinions as well as left/right it is now. It can be hard to realize as an American but judged globally you are comparing far right authoritarians to centre or even centre-right authoritarians as if they were opposites.

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

#126

Post by Corristowolf »

chillydawg wrote: post #117
omginternets wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you figure?

Well most of the abuse is from the right, so most of the correct action will be towards the right. It won't be equal in terms of amount of action for a given side, but it will be equal in terms of blocking dodgy content.

>Well most of the abuse is from the right, so most of the correct action will be towards the right

^ lmao this guy.

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

#127

Post by tonyedgecombe »

amelius wrote: post #111

Will every internet company have to reinvent their own counter-terrorism tools? That doesn't sound very efficient to me. Also, isn't this a task for governments?

I'm more worried about government getting involved than some loss of efficiency.

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

#128

Post by newscracker »

lossolo wrote: post #30

Democracy has it's flaws, but I don't know any other system that works better for society today. One of democracy flaw is balance between freedom and safety, you can't have both. You can easily resolve this (terrorism) problem in totalitarian regimes (look at Kadyrow and Chechen Republic) but whole society will pay price for that. On the other hand it's easy to criticize any censorship like moves but radical islam id…

Frankly speaking, my observations on the actions and expectations by various "democratic governments" around the world lead me to conclude that the world as we know it is fast moving to "totalitarian democratic regimes", where instead of one totalitarian leader/pack controlling and oppressing people for generations (like in the case of dictatorships), we have the illusion that we have the freedom to vote out and vote in different parties/leaders, who eventually toe the lines of the previous elected governments and end up making things even worse overall. Maybe I was naive and ignorant and all this was happening all along over decades and centuries.

The increasing tilt in the balance of power toward the state, on the balance of power equation between the state and the individual, is quite alarming. It seems to me that world over, we're allowing monopolistic views and policies to grow, to the detriment of common people. Terror and terrorism are very useful for those in power to gain even more power. Terrorists who claim to fight for freedom are winning by showing practically that those in power are continually curbing our freedoms. With such policies, tech companies are just joining forces with "democratic oppressive governments" in making them more powerful.

I do not see a clear and easy solution for these problems.

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

#129

Post by tomelders »

izacus wrote: post #124
vacri wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By 'our police', do you mean 'actively curating their own content'? Do you call your local librarian a cop as well?

Local librarian doesn't dictate culture and content to the whole world.

Give them a big enough Library and they would.

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

#130

Post by 3pt14159 »

odiroot wrote: post #101
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…

Aha, so big US companies are our police now. I share your fear. The "kosher" content would be now defined by some faceless person in NY/SF.

They aren't installing a filter into the browser they're OPENLY addressing a problematic issue on YouTube, one of many, many video hosting websites. Nothing stops a terrorist from getting a computer, an internet connection, and hosting his own damn video calling for the murder of women and children.

When you call for violence against non-combatants you're breaking the law in every single western country. If there were only one web browser and the company behind it were implementing universal blocking measures maybe I'd agree with you, but honestly I'd have to think long and hard first. Radicalisation is impossible to survive in the long run as the average power an average individual keeps going up.

Post reply on HN