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

231–240 of 334 posts

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

#231

Post by throwaway321323 »

rdtsc wrote: post #230
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…

I think a passive agressive "fuck you" is an important element because it provides enjoyment and some satisfaction to the corporate drones who you are interacting with. I think allowing low level minions with saddistic tendencies to express that saddism via a kthxbye-but-actually-fu here and there is used to reward them for an otherwise boring and unfulfilling task. In this case it is a bit indirect because it is the…

Sounds like everyday life in Japan.

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

#232

Post by [deleted] »

ucaetano wrote: post #213
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…

And please explain, how would you regulated them? They have nothing in common with how utilities work, so none of the utility regulatory models would work. What are you actually proposing?

[deleted]

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

#233

Post by mustacheemperor »

monocasa wrote: post #168
mustacheemperor wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but I'm saying that in a 'documentation of war crimes' context YouTube might allow a little peek behind the veil if the videos aren't deleted but hidden.

Agreed. I think the larger problem highlighted here is that in this case "YouTube" is just the faceless algorithm making these decisions, and accessing the judgement of a real human being is nearly impossible for the average end user.

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

#234

Post by mrout »

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.

The International Criminal Court has universal jurisdiction

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

#235

Post by oh_sigh »

Spivak wrote: post #139
aiyodev wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to pick on you because this seems to be a popular opinion but I would just like to point out the insanity of your what you just wrote. "as long as they don't abuse copyright" Would we delete videos of the liberation of concentration camps if there was Nickelback music playing in the background? This just demonstrates how successful media companies have been in distorting the true purpose of copyright laws: to pro…

Like, Nickelback is in the original footage or someone overalyed the track on top of the footage? I would imagine if this ever really happened it would be fine in the former, and muted in the latter. You're forgetting that 'promote...' means give the creator control of that content for the purpose of limiting access and making money. Promote in the sense that it becomes possible to actually sell artistic works like c…

Not quite on the level of concentration camp liberation videos, but wasn't there a video of a 2 year old dancing that had like a 20 second clip of some popular song playing on the radio in very low quality in the background, and it got deleted for copyright infringement?

I think this was the video, but it is obviously back up now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ

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

#236

Post by Buge »

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…

These takedowns were done by humans. The videos were flagged by AI for human review.

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

#237

Post by ajarmst »

YouTube does not seem to me to be an appropriate medium for "war crimes evidence". Evidence needs documented provenance, chain-of-custody, storage integrity, affidavits, etc etc. Why does this evidence need a high-bandwidth publicly accessible and searchable interface? For what purpose?

To be honest, if you have evidence of a war crime, I hope your plan to seek justice doesn't depend on Youtube.

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

#238

Post by lerpa »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #177

To me, if you want to regulate controversial opinions, you have to err strongly to the side of too-open. Remember, before the declaration of independence our founding fathers were terrorists/rebels. I don't mean this as a snappy hollow comparison. I'm saying fundamentally, you can't distinguish between a US soldier recruitment video and an ISIS soldier recruitment video without applying a moral context. How would an…

Exactly, but in a world where people desire facebook and others to have "truth checking authorities", I don't expect things to get much better.

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

#239

Post by Buge »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #199

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…

The whole point of the censorship is to stop Youtube from being a tool used for terrorist recruitment. If the terrorists can just check the box "all content" then it's useless.

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

#240

Post by mirimir »

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…

So I'm wondering whether this HN exposure will be enough for some sensible humans to review these takedowns. I mean, is it embarrassing enough? I recall that Facebook reacted rather quickly after its "AI" took down videos inappropriately.
Post reply on HN