YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material' • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#71

Post by Retra » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:12 PM UTC

cvsh wrote: post #32

viridian wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember correctly, the exact same message was delivered to Jordan Peterson a couple of weeks ago or so, before he sat down with the google memo guy. He was in the middle of a bible lecture series, and Google banned his account, and sent the exact same "we've determined that your video does violate our Community Guidelines and have upheld our original decision. We appreciate your understanding." message. It seem…

The worst part of the information age is arbitration by unreasonable and impenetrable algorithms rather than humans with the capacity to make a judgement call when the rules clearly don't account for the situation at hand. A transparent appeals process staffed by humans who can at least deliver a rationale, including what rule you broke, should be required by law. There's irreparable reputational damage associated wi…

That's not the worst part at all! Anyone could file a complaint about a mistaken algorithm; the companies are run by people, and they'll have to address their customers' concerns. The worst part is that humans use these algorithms to justify and enforce their own shitty decisions; to say it is "out of their hands" due to some inane, manufactured inconvenience.

>There's irreparable reputational damage associated with an algorithm libelously labeling something "extremist content" that isn't.

The damage is definitely repairable. You admit the algorithm is flawed and you tolerate exceptions to it.

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#72

Post by yeukhon » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:13 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #58

should be required by law If your videos don't pass the algorithm, post them somewhere else rather than reaching for the government hammer. Youtube/Google has every right to run their business of posting or denying video content the way they see fit without justifying it to you, free user of their service. If you think they're making a bad business decision and that there's a need for a video service that gives great…

Yes, absolutely! We solved the problem!

No really, seriously, this idea is so flawed.

* You don't like the government? Move or start your own government!

* You don't like your house? Rebuild it or buy another house!

* You don't like the way Earth is being run? Move or RIP!

* You don't like the way the school is being run? Move to another town or build your own school!

* You don't like the fact oil is so expensive? Drill your own oil!

* You don't like this comment? Flag it or deal with it or build your own HN.

* You don't like the way anything is done or served? DIY all the way.

* You don't like your local Starbucks? Run one or go to Dunkin' Donut.

* You don't like the way hospital runs? Run one or don't go.

Something more extreme?

* You don't like your parents? Disown your relationship with your parents or make new parents!

* You don't like your child? Disown your child and make one again.

Why don't we dedicate our own life building things every time we don't like? Because we have better things to do. We deserve to complain and we have every right to dislike a service and we don't need to discredit our expectations.

Users want real time PvP and exchange/trade in PokemonGo, but after a year they are still not available. So why don't we build a new PokemonGo? Because we need to rent servers, build the code, maintain the code, make deal with Pokemon rights owners (which is impossible for a small company). So we bend and yield to Google, because we have no better alternative.

This incident teaches us a few things;

1. Please do not think AI/algorithm is smart enough to replace an actual human. Even though human carries biases and are sloppy too, but algorithms are just as bias, if not, more bias and more sloppy (dealing with "abnormality" and edge cases) than a human being will ever be. The hype "AI" will take over... we are nowhere near that.

2. YT is too popular to listen. Losing a few thousand users means nothing to YT. We will soon forget about this in 5 hours and go back to do our own things.

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#73

Post by carapace » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:13 PM UTC

mythrwy wrote: post #65

carapace wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nationalize Google!" Okay, no, that would be turning the knob to 11. I upvoted you because I was like, "Yeah, maybe some regulation might be good." Then I thought about who would be doing the regulating and now I'm much less enthusiastic. :-/ Still, it does seem like there should be a bit more, uh, community input into how these vast silos are administered.

The community making it's own silo(s) might be another option. (Problem is, silo making by committee has it's own set of challenges.)

Well, I agree, but then how do you get Joe and Jane User to switch?

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#74

Post by crusso » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:14 PM UTC

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #67

crusso wrote: post #58

should be required by law If your videos don't pass the algorithm, post them somewhere else rather than reaching for the government hammer. Youtube/Google has every right to run their business of posting or denying video content the way they see fit without justifying it to you, free user of their service. If you think they're making a bad business decision and that there's a need for a video service that gives great…

And, Government has right to break up monopolies. I now fully support breaking up Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft; may be Apple. Executives at publicly traded companies have no right to enforce their individual political views as company policies. They are not privately held companies, they are public companies who are held at higher standards of equal treatment to all. What if Bic and Mead said you can't writ…

And, Government has right to break up monopolies

Youtube is successful and even dominates the space, but is not a monopoly. There are other video hosting services that can be accessed by anyone. You can start your own if you think there's a need. The fact is that people like Youtube.

Monopolies have a specific lock on their customers or their supply of a limited resource. That's why people are okay with breaking them up. Not just because they're really popular and successful.

What if Bic and Mead said you can't write a opinion that we don't like using our pen and notebooks?

Bic and Mead don't host your content. You buy their tools to create your own content and then publish it yourself, give it out yourself on media you paid for, etc.

What if US Postal Service said you can't send a snail mail if it contains references to UPS or FedEx?

The USPS is a government-supported entity. Special rules apply for entities that have government laws behind just them.

If a delivery entity opened your packages to evaluate content, that would present an entirely different sent of problems for them and their customers - because the content is private. Youtube videos are public. That's the point. Youtube has determined for their own reasons that extremist content hurts their business model.

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#75

Post by mustacheemperor » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:16 PM UTC

monocasa wrote: post #5

Have they checked with YouTube to see if the files are actually deleted? Like just because their gateway won't give you access to it doesn't necessarily mean that the bits have been scrubbed on the back end. Also: here's a project to archive this information. https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-7909-syrian_archive

Unfortunately many of the original uploaders have since died in the war, and the deleted playlists were the only visible place the videos were accessible.

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#76

Post by AmIFirstToThink » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:16 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #69

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #60

And, come to think they had me convinced that this was not going to happen for few decades. I think YouTube went down pretty fast and without fight. The ideological takeover of Facebook and Twitter raged on for few years. I think YouTube was taken over literally overnight. I remember being appreciative of YouTube just a few days back. Guess, time to cancel my $15 Youtube Red Family membership. Ugh, I really hate ads…

I have no idea what you're saying. YouTube was "taken over"? By whom? If this news was what changed your opinion, you were simply uninformed; nothing has actually changed. YouTube had done the same more than two years ago[1], and that's very unlikely to be the first case. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/2wra0d/well...

https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-applauds-google-...

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/1/16072840/youtube-placing-l...

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#77

Post by icebraining » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:19 PM UTC

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #76

icebraining wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea what you're saying. YouTube was "taken over"? By whom? If this news was what changed your opinion, you were simply uninformed; nothing has actually changed. YouTube had done the same more than two years ago[1], and that's very unlikely to be the first case. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/2wra0d/well...

https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-applauds-google-... https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/1/16072840/youtube-placing-l...

From your first link, "[Google is] one of the founding members of ADL’s Anti-Cyberhate Working Group, established almost a decade ago".

Like I said, nothing significant has changed recently. They are just expanding what they were already doing.

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#78

Post by pmoriarty » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:21 PM UTC

cvsh wrote: post #32

viridian wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember correctly, the exact same message was delivered to Jordan Peterson a couple of weeks ago or so, before he sat down with the google memo guy. He was in the middle of a bible lecture series, and Google banned his account, and sent the exact same "we've determined that your video does violate our Community Guidelines and have upheld our original decision. We appreciate your understanding." message. It seem…

The worst part of the information age is arbitration by unreasonable and impenetrable algorithms rather than humans with the capacity to make a judgement call when the rules clearly don't account for the situation at hand. A transparent appeals process staffed by humans who can at least deliver a rationale, including what rule you broke, should be required by law. There's irreparable reputational damage associated wi…

To be fair, the process needs to be much more than merely transparent. It needs to be independent.

That means that it needs to be done by an entity outside of Google itself, and not in any way associated with or influenced by Google.

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#79

Post by osteele » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:21 PM UTC

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #8

It was folly to think that YouTube would be a safe place to document war crimes. YouTube is a distribution channel, not a preservation channel. Its ease of use certainly makes it an attractive option to upload things quickly, but anything of historical significance should have the video raws immediately turned over to a human rights organization for preservation.

One issue with YouTube is archival status. Another is provenance.

At some point it will be as easy to create fake videos as to create fake text. It is unrealistic to expect people who aren't information literate about text will be literate about video, but I hope that there's a way for journalists to move away from YouTube by then.

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#80

Post by crusso » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:21 PM UTC

chc wrote: post #62

crusso wrote: post #58

should be required by law If your videos don't pass the algorithm, post them somewhere else rather than reaching for the government hammer. Youtube/Google has every right to run their business of posting or denying video content the way they see fit without justifying it to you, free user of their service. If you think they're making a bad business decision and that there's a need for a video service that gives great…

"Go start your own business if you disagree" seems like a middlebrow dismissal unless you're actually offering to fund the endeavor.

It's a dismissal of the idea that we need to appeal to an authority to solve every problem we see without acknowledging that there are very real ways that the civil society can solve problems without the use of government force and the myriad of unintended consequences that go along with it.

There are countless guides on the Internet for writing software that can create blogs, host pictures, videos, and other content. You could do it yourself or hire a few people for a relatively small amount of money.

Start off with a hosting company and if you're successful, get your own colocation facility.

Build from there.

(yes, I was an engineering founder of an ISP in the Bay Area and built it up to past the point of being capable of the above - and we did it without outside funding, just our own savings from our jobs: engineers, accountant, support person)