Douglas adam's 'Peril sensitive sunglasses' are nearly here.
YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'
91–100 of 334 posts
Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'
#92should 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…
When you find something Apple has a monopoly on, you might have a point there.
The only monopoly they've ever had is on taste, and for a short period of time I suppose you could argue MP3 players.
Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 YouT…
paid for by their time and watching ads
The ads pay for the content you watch at the time. It doesn't pay for your right to dictate the terms of their service in perpetuity. Thus, this whole line of thinking is a non-starter. Further, YT is not required to support whatever business model you build on top of theirs unless they've agreed to a contract of some sort. Do you know of such a contract?
destroying shareholder value
Maybe so, but their rationale at the moment is that extremist videos create a hostile environment for their users. They would rather not perpetually expose their preferred users to the toxicity of extremism. It's arguably a move to increase shareholder value. If you think they're wrong, don't be a shareholder.
Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'
#94It 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.
>should have the video raws immediately turned over to a human rights organization for preservation
You're saying like every human rights organization have some magical means of preservation other than uploading to YouTube.
Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It seems pretty conventional to say that "taking over" is the culmination of a gradual "expansion", no?
Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'
#96Since my understanding is that covering up a war crime is itself a war crime under Complicity doctrine, could Google executives get charged for this in The Hague?
I'm willing to bet that in their hundreds and hundreds of pages of terms and conditions there is a paragraph saying that by using their services you give up your right to sue Google for war crimes.
Even if there were, such contracts have been tried before and the courts simply ignore them.
A contract can't override criminal law.
Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'
#97Earlier 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…
The opacity is by design. It's notable that such behavior by an individual would typically be considered psychologically abusive. It's one reason I talk about power relations frequently; we are in the throes of automating them, and given the impact of technology on other spheres of human activity we should be wary of what sort of social relations were are baking in.
Perhaps the Graph should be public domain. Perhaps too we are heading towards a world where reputation and legal identity are subject to casual destruction but there's no real barrier to starting over, much like when you die in a videogame.
Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'
#98Earlier 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…
>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.
> only their shitloads of money allow them to resist government demands to hack a user's phone
Their extreme centralization makes it much easier for the government to make those demands. I think you're more right than wrong, though.
Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'
#99should 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…
If you think they're making a bad business decision No, that's not what people arguing for a law think, and if you don't understand that, you can't make an effective argument rebutting their position. The implied position is that Google is doing something bad for society , even if it's good for business. You may disagree that this is bad for society, or that even if it is, it's still Google's prerogative, but you sho…
I actually thought crusso did a good job of rebutting that argument given the context of a HN comment that presumably can't stretch on for volumes of political theory.
Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'
#100should 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…
If you think they're making a bad business decision No, that's not what people arguing for a law think, and if you don't understand that, you can't make an effective argument rebutting their position. The implied position is that Google is doing something bad for society , even if it's good for business. You may disagree that this is bad for society, or that even if it is, it's still Google's prerogative, but you sho…
You ignored the first part of my post where I said: post elsewhere rather than appealing to government authority. My last statement was suggesting a better idea in a free society than to try to bit-by-bit destroy that free society with yet more overpowering, overintrusive government.
The implied position is that Google is doing something bad for society
That completely doesn't compute. Google isn't in business to make things better for society. If they are, maybe they should give all their profits to charity, stop hosting cat videos and instead become some kind of hoster of national public content? Who said that was their business?
I mean, why not argue that youporn.com isn't hosting these anti-ISIS videos either? They host videos. They could start hosting anti-ISIS videos to archive them.