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

131–140 of 187 posts

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

#131

Post by bobabooey02 »

3pt14159 wrote: post #130
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.

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 wer…

They didn't say they were going to start removing videos with illegal content, they already do that. They said that they were going to start removing videos that don't break any rules, yet the company deems them unsavory. Which is incredibly frustrating since 1) YT has become the center of our changing culture, and 2) not everyone lines up with the PC Californian culture that dominates large multinational corporations.

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

#132

Post by hueving »

3pt14159 wrote: post #130
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.

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 wer…

Murder sure; however, it said this:

>videos that contain inflammatory religious or supremacist content

It's very easy to claim content is inflammatory or supremacist . This will be highly subjective, which is the problem.

I personally know people here in the bay area that would have no problem labelling lots of campaign talk by Trump with those tags.

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

#133

Post by bobabooey02 »

dropit_sphere wrote: post #110
patrickg_zill wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pardon me, but your view is ridiculous! Or are you claiming that the people at Evergreen are all secret members of the Pepe Brotherhood and that they are not holding their leftist views honestly?

What part of his view seems ridiculous to you?

The idea that hundreds of non-white alt-righters could gather at a college and all act like extremist liberals while not leaking the fact they're alt-righters is pretty absurd to me.

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

#134

Post by auganov »

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…

Right, quite honestly I'd like to see them just make a mostly uncensored spinoff and set up censorship on vanilla youtube. Lax, uneven censorship gives you the worst of both worlds really.

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

#136

Post by hueving »

matt4077 wrote: post #95
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…

I don't agree that traditional media outlets "hype up the terror". If you compare the coverage of, for example, the recent attacks in London and the fire you're referring to, they seemed to get about equal billing. On the smaller scale, violence will get more prominent coverage, yes. But that's just a reflection of public interest, and how much intent makes a subjective difference. News outlets like the BBC or the Gu…

How often do you hear about shootings in South Chicago in world news? 294 people have died there so far this year![1]

Terrorist events should be treated like any other murders and people will very quickly stop caring. They are just hyped up by the media to drive views and the governments love it because it allows them to expand their power.

1. https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2017-chicago-murders

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

#137

Post by creepydata »

wiz21c wrote: post #96

From YouTube Hero's Program rules : https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7159025 >>> Participation in the Program by some participants may be restricted (e.g., no or limited perks), including persons who are government officials, including (i) government employees; (ii) candidates for public office; and (iii) employees of government-owned or government-controlled companies, public international organizations, an…

What does it tell?

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

#138

Post by Faark »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #104
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…

Given that the costs will still be present but Google won't get any benefit for hosting these videos, how likely are they in the future to simply delete them?

You seem to simplify quite a lot. Costs should go down with videos not being recommended and thus less watched. Not excessively oppressing their users should be a benefit. Sure we could find more of both costs and benefits and I wouldn't be sure about the resulting score.

I also wonder how much it will cost to classify a video versus just hosting one of those average and barely viewed videos.

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

#139

Post by StreamBright »

Buge wrote: post #48
theparanoid wrote: post #8

Hello Big Brother.

Do Hacker News moderators count as Big Brother? An website can decide how it wants to moderate itself.

HN is a nieche website for mostly tech people. It has a very nice way of moderating content and I haven't really heard of any misuse of power yet (anecdotal evidence).

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

#140

Post by coldtea »

creepydata wrote: post #122
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.

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 C…

>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?

Facebook is not Old Navy (one of thousands of competing clothing stores), it's a ubiquitous service with over a billion people in it, almost everybody on the internet.

Like Google, it's more of a basic internet service than a mere website. And its content (and content policies) are a factor in political discourse, both in the US and outside of it.

Secondly, to restrict the discussion to examples that your audience will clearly dislike ("Hitler was right", "white supremacist exhibit") is misleading, because the problem is with items that are not that clear cut but will be censored anyway.

E.g. "Iraq doesn't have WMDs", "CIA is involved in drug trafficking", "US supports death squads in Latin America", "Dodge the Vietnam draft" and so on -- to limit the examples to such items from the past. What would a mainstream company who "censors" stuff allow from those back in the day when they were hot issues?

Or let's take it to today, how about pro/anti-Trump, or pro-anti Assad, or pro-anti Black Lives Matter, pro-anti Manning, pro-anti Assange, etc?

Even stuff that the majority in the US might disagree with, the majority in another culture/country might legitimately agree (and not want it censored) -- but they'd have no say. A single country (and one from which many countries have scars from) will control a large part of the internet discussions (through Facebook, and similar policies in Google, etc) of other countries.

Post reply on HN