Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

middleeasteye.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 334 posts

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

#141

Post by lazyasciiart »

gambiting wrote: post #55
raverbashing wrote: post #38

Why are people storing evidence on Youtube again? Not blaming the victim, but at this point most of Google services have not shown to be reliable, especially if you require some kind of thinking human behind a decision

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.

There is probably someone in that 'entire world watching it' who has the time and technical expertise to help make backups. If nobody else knows about it, then it wasn't going to be used for evidence of anything anyway.

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

#142

Post by dmurray »

Alex3917 wrote: post #28

Since 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?

Google executives are overwhelmingly US citizens. The ICC has no jurisdiction over them.

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

#143

Post by 7373737373 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #56
Alex3917 wrote: post #28

Since 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 am not an expert in international law, but you would still have to prove intent, I believe. It's hard to prove intent on an algorithm that very simply is incapable of understanding the significance of its actions.

Deferring decisions to an algorithm doesn't absolve the owner from responsibility for its actions. If the consequences are unknown, why should it be allowed to use it?

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

#144

Post by meric »

dmurray wrote: post #142
Alex3917 wrote: post #28

Since 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?

Google executives are overwhelmingly US citizens. The ICC has no jurisdiction over them.

Do some of them have dual citizenship?

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

#145

Post by nnfy »

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…

This isn't just some AI gone wrong. YouTube has had an agenda for years. At the very least, people with power to undo these bans are complacent, there is simply no way that YouTube staff are unaware of the gradual crackdowns. Even content producers will mention demonitization occasionally.

Nothing major online happens by accident.

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

#146

Post by macintux »

jonex wrote: post #133
macintux wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Devices capable of running apps designed for IOS. Selling native apps to iPhone users. Charging users within native apps for IOS.

I suggest you re-read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolization.

Defining a market as "the products Apple sells" for the purpose of determining that Apple has a monopoly on that market is irrational.

The iPhone is one competitor in the smartphone market. Apple clearly lacks a monopoly.

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

#147

Post by camus2 »

cisanti wrote: post #11
TheRealPomax wrote: post #7

To be fair, YouTube is under no obligation to some greater good; it's just a video hosting service. Expecting it to "preserve footage" and any footage at that, is a strange expectation.

Not an obligation, but their mission statement is "To organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful." Guess they need to change to "information that we and our advertisers agree with." Yes, I know they are different companies under Alphabet but it doesn't matter. Google has become a monster and too big, powerful.

> but their mission statement is "To organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful."

It's just marketing. If you really want to see what the actual "mission" is read the TOS. Google,Facebook,Twitter and co like to boast about their humanitarian and humanist stance, the Apple way, when it comes to their relationship with their users but that's all a lie. The moment the need of their users doesn't match their financial interest all bets are off. The shit-storm triggered by a few outraged online publications and announcers a few month ago is a demonstration of that fact.

Independence and freedom of speech online has a price and "users" are going to find it out the hardway when Google refuses to host their content for political reasons.

People already forgot, that the tech to share content online already exists, it's called RSS and Google,Twitter,Facebook and co want it to go away.

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

#148

Post by hossbeast »

pmoriarty wrote: post #78
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…

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.

Google is a company. You want video hosting to be run by the government?

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

#149

Post by the8472 »

hossbeast wrote: post #148
pmoriarty wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google is a company. You want video hosting to be run by the government?

How about by a non-profit?

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

#150

Post by CaptSpify »

jptman wrote: post #61
nxc18 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has an inordinate amount of money to spend on inordinate amount of content review. Deleting history and evidence of war crimes is Evil; good thing Google had abandoned their earlier aspirations.

I think you are underestimating the amount of video that gets uploaded to Youtube. Smaller sites may be better at stuff like this but that's solely because they don't have quite the amount of content. Hundreds of hours of videos are uploaded per minute. They may eventually have AI good enough to do a better job, but this is an unprecedented amount of content to review.

So?

If youtube can't handle the load, then they shouldn't claim that they can. At the absolute lest, they need a usable appeals process. If they can't do that, then they need to own up to it, and stop allowing anyone to upload anything.

Post reply on HN