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

191–200 of 334 posts

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

#191

Post by likelynew »

the8472 wrote: post #183
vidarh wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big challenge with this is to solve the problem that almost everyone has a "one step too far" when it comes to what type of content we are willing to tolerate and/or what type of content we may get in trouble for hosting even if it is not intentional. That makes it tricky to for solutions that "put people and free speech first" to succeed, because they've basically painted a giant target on themselves, and it eas…

I think the problem is the expectation of people that someone else do the filtering for them. I.e. "I don't want to see this kind of content" leads to "someone else should remove it from all the sites I visit". Which obviously leads to conflicting requirements once you have more than one person and those people disagree on what they want to see and don't want to see. The only reasonable solution is to host everything…

> modulo requirements by law

Which law?

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

#192

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

macintux wrote: post #92
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…

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.

iMessage

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

#193

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

ComodoHacker wrote: post #90
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…

>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.

Government changes, at least every eight years.

The fiefdoms of AFGAM are there for pretty much life.

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

#195

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

crusso wrote: post #93
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

The content policy has changed following political ideology.

Now content that does not violate any terms of conditions if also getting removed/demonetized, again following political ideology.

You are focused on Google being able to do what they are doing, I agree, they are quite within their rights to do so.

But, I see this situation same as a Github project uses Apache license to begin, to get adopters, to get eyes that find and resolve bugs, eyes that ask for much wanted features, after being successful the project changes to AGPL or Propitiatory closed-source license selling Enterprise Edition. This is slap in the face of people who gave time to the project.

Anyone who spends time in modern software industry, like an user on hacker news, would clearly see the similarities between the YouTube situation and bait-and-switch on license for successful open source software.

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

#196

Post by CamperBob2 »

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?

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

I'm with you. I don't want that, but at some point I expect to lose the argument. Google will cut their own throats with their smug "We investigated our decision and found it to be correct" pronunciations.

The fact is, any sufficiently dominant corporation is indistinguishable from a government. The more a company like Google behaves like a bureaucratically-hidebound public utility, the harder it will be to argue that it shouldn't be regulated like one.

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

#197

Post by sologoub »

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?

How about a public s3 bucket curated by a non-profit?

Tools exist already to upload to S3 from practically every device, especially Android.

Curation would be much harder, but there is a lot of money in philanthropy and I could see some deep pockets contributing to that.

YouTube is fine as a means of promoting and gaining awareness - world should know about these things, but it's not rational to expect a corporation (aka people within it) to act in any other interest other then it's own.

Seems like this could be an interesting infrastructure non-profit for YC to fund.

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

#198

Post by CamperBob2 »

briandear wrote: post #180
cloakandswagger wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-The services provided by Google and Facebook have an unassailable majority of market share and are relied on by a huge amount of people. -They enjoy a de facto monopoly and are protected by the extreme cost, risk and time involved in building competing services. -Finally, they have a potential for abuse (say, with selective censorship or politically biased algorithms) that could essentially curb the Constitutional r…

Trusting government to regulate Facebook? No way. I lived in China; I have seen how that story plays out. Some people really do have a naïve trust in government. Free markets are the answer. Who has actually made a legitimate attempt to compete with Google or Facebook? What VCs are investing in Facebook alternatives? MySpace was unstoppable – until it wasn’t. Yahoo owned search – until it didn’t. Perhaps there ought…

No way. I lived in China; I have seen how that story plays out.

It's naive to think that any one form of human organization, be it governmental or corporate, is somehow less corruptible than another. You're right to be on your guard against governmental abuses, but don't take your eye off the other balls in play.

History is littered with great companies toppled by better ideas and execution.

What we've seen lately are instances where one company topples another and proceeds to commit the same abuses, only more effectively and at wider scale. When Facebook replaced MySpace, were its users really that much better off? Which company had fewer rules and enforced fewer content guidelines? When one company dominates the market and locks it up with network effects, what incentive does that leave them to play well with others?

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

#199

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

Why not create a setting that allows user to see YouTube as sanitized by their AI or all content?

Allow people to chose content level just like they choose security level in browser settings.

1. Legal content. May include content that violates YouTube content policy, but is legal in USA, or the country of the viewer. Maximum freedom of speech and maximum ability to see content that you may find offending.

2. YouTube content policy met. Content that is legal and meets YouTube Content Policy.

3. Legal, Meets YouTube content policy, Meets a certain org's taste. Like when you can pick a charity that you can donate to when you shop on smile.amazon.com. You can select the org whose bubble you want to live in. ADL, Focus on Family, Skeptics etc. The org bans content and it only is banned for people who opt into that blacklist on youtube.

4. When user is not logged in they get AI filtered list but can select "all legal" or "all that meets content policy" filters, even when logged out. All others bubbles available to logged in users only.

Advertisers can opt into certain bubble if they want, or opt out of certain content e.g. content deemed inappropriate by the AI?

How does that sound YouTube?

Doesn't the government security agencies want to know who is watching extremist content and who is not interested in it? How would we know who the extremist are if they fall back to person to person, in person, communication?

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

#200

Post by monksy »

Hasknewbie wrote: post #9

Youtube's response regarding one of these videos documenting abuses (emphasis mine): > "we've determined that your video does violate our Community Guidelines and have upheld our original decision. We appreciate your understanding ." Can someone explain to me why corporations, when interacting with customers regarding complaints/appeals, seem to have "don't forget to add insult to injury" as one of their motto more o…

There are 2 uses for that language.

1. It's to add insult to injury while attempting to soften the blow

2. It's an attempt to deny that they have power to do what they did.

For the insult to injury: This is a technique that is under the "thinking past the sale". (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/129433801521/thinking-past-the-...) The context prior to the understanding part basically has put you in: "I've done something bad and now I'm being punished." The last phrase "We appreciate your understanding." has later put you in the position of understandnig that: They (plural people) would like for me to understand their decision.

In short this you're no longer put in a position where you can really fight back directly with the issue at hand. You're reminded that you are fighting against an organization if you disagree. It's predatory and manipulative.

The second part: It's a manipulative attempt to prevent you from attributing ill will against the offending party. They're attempting to "soften the blow" because they appear to be reaching out.

On both of these possibilities, the biggest issue with this is it's incredibly manipulative and it's much more insulting when you notice it. The organizations and people who use those statements should be doomed to be constantly rejected in everything they do and want in his passive aggressive stance for the rest of their life. It's an incredibly anti-social behavior.

Unfortunately, we don't have social punishments for shitty behaviors like this.

Last to note: This is the equivalent of the "apology" "I'm sorry that you feel that way" or "I'm sorry this didn't turn out the way you had hoped."

Post reply on HN