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

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

#81

Post by pmoriarty » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:22 PM UTC

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 really hate ads on YouTube."

Just use youtube-dl and you'll never see any ads.

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

#82

Post by gambiting » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:23 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #66

gambiting wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are a rebel in a contested part of the world, submitting videos to youtube takes literally 2 clicks on any cheapest android phone, and then the entire world can watch it. Everything else requires at least a bit of technical expertise which you might not have.

Correct. You could also save it to Google Drive or other "Cloud Backup" solutions like OneDrive/Dropbox But I guess hindsight is 20/20, and I would probably have trusted YT more than I should

If you submit a video to google drive and start giving people links then it will be very promptly disabled with a warning that if you want to share it you need to upload it to youtube. Same with OneDrive/Dropbox. It's fine to share with a few people, but go into hundreds and it gets quickly shut down.

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

#83

Post by moogly » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:24 PM UTC

Mangalor wrote: post #25

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.

Where else should they be stored?

liveleak

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

#84

Post by cvsh » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:26 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…

That addresses one issue posed by AI bans, but not the other issue I mention in the second paragraph.

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

#85

Post by cvsh » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:28 PM UTC

ingenuous2 wrote: post #70

cvsh wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This has always existed. We call it bureaucracy.

Bureaucracies are staffed with humans who have the capacity to make a judgement call on how to interpret the rules, and bend their letter to serve their spirit, or the interests of pubic relations, or just common sense.

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

#86

Post by osteele » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:29 PM UTC

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #27

Mangalor wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where else should they be stored?

archive.org

I hope we're in a world where that can happen.

At the least, we probably need “upload video to archive.org” mobile apps to make this as useful to journalists in the field as YouTube currently is.

If the Archive grows as a journalistic distribution channel, it might then face YouTube's issues of copyrights, piracy, and other criminal use. However, the Archive could apply goals that are more compatible with journalism than YouTube can. Maybe sufficient philanthropic support could make this possible.

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

#87

Post by AmIFirstToThink » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:29 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #74

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

The people who bought into YouTube as a platform, the content creators and their followers, paid for by their time and watching ads into the platform. Remember, when you are not paying for the service, you are the product. The people who adopted into YouTube platform paid for it's success. YouTube was sanctuary when Facebook and Twitter were cracking down on Free Speech. Now, YouTube changing their position is clear bait and switch. You allowed people to use the platform till you are successful, taking their time and energy to drive your ad revenue, now you are cracking down on content you don't like. It is true that it will be relatively easy in this day and age, to secure funding outside of YouTube Ad revenue and host content yourself. Startups will start doing just that. YouTube will look at this moment in time where the executive's individual political preferences were turned into company policy, destroying shareholder value.

>Monopolies have a specific lock on their customers or their supply of a limited resource.

YouTube changes are bait and switch on content creators and consumers who made the platform successful. DeMonetizing someone overnight after years of efforts into the platform and acquiring followers is extreme power held by a corporation.

>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.

My argument precisely for Net Neutrality. :-) Don't look at content, I bought data transfer, ISP should just forward it on using internet routing rules, just like Post Office does.

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

#88

Post by crusso » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:32 PM UTC

yeukhon wrote: post #72

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? Dr…

Appealing to government authority every time some business does something you don't like should make your list of "so flawed" solutions.

1. No one said it was, but it's their business. We live in a society that allows you to start up your own business in days if you don't like the offering of another private business. Giving up immediately and suggesting that the wielder of force in the society (government) jump in as a parent is usually a fail.

2. That still doesn't give you the right to dictate how they run their business?

There's definitely something going on in our society these days where everyone wants authority to solve all their problems without acknowledging all of the potential problems that strengthening authority leads to. The article below talks about victimhood, but it mainly tries to help illuminate where this appeal to authority strain is coming from.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/11/victimhood-culture-in-amer...

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

#89

Post by detaro » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:32 PM UTC

cvsh wrote: post #85

ingenuous2 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has always existed. We call it bureaucracy.

Bureaucracies are staffed with humans who have the capacity to make a judgement call on how to interpret the rules, and bend their letter to serve their spirit, or the interests of pubic relations, or just common sense.

Do we know how much YouTube involves humans in the process? I wouldn't be surprised if appeals go to a human which clicks the "yeah, nope" button.

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

#90

Post by ComodoHacker » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 6:33 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…

>I now fully support breaking up Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft; may be Apple.

OTOH, only their shitloads of money allow them to resist government demands to hack a user's phone or hand over users' data in their cloud. Every cloud has a silver lining.