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

181–187 of 187 posts

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

#181

Post by freshhawk »

bzbarsky wrote: post #174
freshhawk wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Not that there isn't any violence from the left, but not nearly as much Are you sure? I'd love to see credible sources for this data, for the US. Note that sources talking about "hate crimes" are unfortunately not usable here simply because they by definition exclude violence towards groups that violent left-wing groups target. I am aware that after this last election there was an upsurge in hate crimes; there was…

Oh definitely recent, historical would be different ... although you'd have to be very careful to pick your dates to include the blip of leftist violence and exclude say, the Klan. Not that you don't have a point about the lack of education about the leftist violence in the 70s, but the moral victors tend to write the history.

Sure, there was an uptick in attacks on Trump supporters. But you take all of those and I'll take only violence against muslims or trans people, your choice. Hell, if I took only violence against non-muslim brown people mistaken for muslims the numbers would still be higher.

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

#182

Post by bzbarsky »

freshhawk wrote: post #181
bzbarsky wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not that there isn't any violence from the left, but not nearly as much Are you sure? I'd love to see credible sources for this data, for the US. Note that sources talking about "hate crimes" are unfortunately not usable here simply because they by definition exclude violence towards groups that violent left-wing groups target. I am aware that after this last election there was an upsurge in hate crimes; there was…

Oh definitely recent, historical would be different ... although you'd have to be very careful to pick your dates to include the blip of leftist violence and exclude say, the Klan. Not that you don't have a point about the lack of education about the leftist violence in the 70s, but the moral victors tend to write the history. Sure, there was an uptick in attacks on Trump supporters. But you take all of those and I'l…

> Hell, if I took only violence against non-muslim brown people mistaken for muslims the numbers would still be higher

Do you have a source for that? Because, again, I've had a _very_ hard time finding credible numbers for this stuff, and would love some actual data.

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

#183

Post by coldtea »

vacri wrote: post #178
coldtea wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, most libraries where I live/know have central boards / panels that decide those things -- not necessarily staffed by professional librarians (e.g. the state appoints members there from the academic community, etc., some are voted, etc.). There are also deals to get copy(ies) from each published work (by specific or all publishers). Librarians do handle the organization and everyday operation, archiving projects…

> Besides, my local librarian doesn't decide what books the library will have vs > curated collections open to the public What's the difference between Google removing a terrorist video from public view (they never delete anything), and a library having a book but the librarian not making it available to the public? I mean, you rebut me when I say Google curates its own content, then turn around and say librarians ar…

>Where are the people angrily demanding that google put child pornography back into their search results, out of a demand for freedom of speech for all? Why is that topic treated differently to terrorist recruitment videos?

Because most people act irrationally when it comes to related issues, and because other people (still a minority) don't want to be branded negatively by hysterical public/pundits.

One might as well ask where were the vocal proponents of black rights in 1920 Alabama?

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

#184

Post by Angostura »

Angostura wrote: post #103
DuskStar wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> What's the chance that these policies apply to both sides equally? I would say there's a very good chance that it will

Well, you're assuming asymmetry with no evidence that it's particularly likely.

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

#185

Post by remotehack »

initstick wrote: post #57
remotehack wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

While your statement is quite vague it is no less completely inaccurate. "Supporting violence" is subjective and ambiguous. Are action movies and video games supportive of violence? How about war documentaries? Furthermore, while "hate" speech is not the best use of our ability to communicate it does fall under the protection of free speech - at least in the United States. In some groups hate speech (however it is yo…

Actually just went back and re-read what I wrote, I'm not entirely sure what the point was I was trying to get across now.

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

#186

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #159
hueving wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> This will be highly subjective, which is the problem also they have to determine these norms for the whole planet (without North Korea), now every attempt so far that tried to set cultural norms for the whole world has failed, lets see if they do better.

i think that once upon a time facebook and google wouldn't do such things for fear of loosing customers to the competition, now its different: they got us hooked and now they are behaving as if they were a real government. This consolidation around 'platforms' and lack of competition is not good for the internet.

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

#187

Post by wiz21c »

creepydata wrote: post #137
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?

It tells that Google is completely opaque on who gets hired and who doesn't (because the sentence is fuzzy). Google is a private company so it seems logical that they have the last word. However, given the size of Google, I'd be happy if the ethical argument about what is an acceptable video would come at the table too.

The fact that Google tries to do something about terrorism is absolutely not equal to the fact that it is efficient at that. For us to know that, we must be able to review their results at that (and how do we even define a result in this area :-/ ) as well as their methods (which requires transparency).

Post reply on HN