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

281–290 of 334 posts

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

#281

Post by davidreiss »

Thank you WSJ, NYTimes and the traditional media for pressuring youtube, facebook, reddit and social media to censor.

People aren't aware that for the past few years, traditional media and social media has been battling behind the scenes over content, narrative and censorship. It was a major war going on that the public was simply unaware of. Suffice it to say, traditional media won.

It is amazing how a select group of news organizations and their editors and journalists can use their bully pulpit to intimidate certain industries.

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

#282

Post by davidreiss »

nnq wrote: post #267

Maybe people should get their shit together and realize that true free speech include allowing videos that seek to recruit people into despicable organizations be available! Yeah, even Hitler had a right to say what he thought and it'a a good thing he had it, despite the consequences that ensued. The problem that needs to be solved is how to educate people into not being lured into those organization DESPITE having a…

> Imho the problem comes from the fact that corporations try to hard to be "democratic" about things and "please the majority".

Corporations aren't trying to please the majority. They don't care about the majority. Besides, the majority wants free speech.

Most americans don't want jobs being sent to china, but the elite do. Which side do you think corporations chose?

Youtube and the rest of social media are censoring because the WSJ, NYTimes, etc have been pressuring them to. And the WSJ, NYTimes and the traditional media doesn't represent the "majority", they are the mouthpiece of the elite.

Think about it for nearly 10 years social media has been highly "pro-free speech". The WSJ, NYTimes, etc do hit pieces against social media and put pressure on them and all of a sudden, it's relentless censorship.

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

#283

Post by davidreiss »

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…

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

Because it's about controlling narrative, controlling propaganda and giving the "media/news" space back to traditional media.

That's what people have been asking from sites like reddit and HN for years now. Give people the option view the raw threads ( uncensored ) and the moderated ( censored ). But neither are interested or have indicated they will. Instead, on reddit at least, there is more and more censorship.

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

Do you really think advertisers care? Do you really think corporate america cares? They don't have morals. China is brutal dictatorship and yet advertisers and corporations have no problem doing business with china.

It's simply a matter of control. Who gets to decide what you and I see. Do the masses get to decide for themselves and control what they see or do the small group of elites? Per usual, the elites won and they get to decide.

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

#284

Post by lugg »

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…

It comes down to the second thing I remember learning in highschool level programming. Always use neutral language in your program text, and don't make jokes.

Google does have a habbit of making jokes in their software, chrome crash page comes to mind.. so I don't really find it very surprising to see this kind of message.

To be clear it's really only an insult when you don't know why your content was removed. If you know why, and can see their side it makes sense and it wouldn't seem so insulting. But in a case like this, it comes off insulting due to the true situation.

Removing the text all together and simply stating the fact would have sent the intended message perfectly.

And finally, likely just a developer, not a pr drone.

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

#285

Post by dublinclontarf »

viridian wrote: post #29
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…

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…

Hoping with the rollout of GDPR this will come to an end.

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

#286

Post by fastball »

CaptSpify wrote: post #150
jptman wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why? Own up to what?

YouTube is a company that is beholden to advertisers. YouTube wants/pays for videos that they can put ads in front of. If your content is not the type of content YouTube can wrap in ads, and you need longevity for your videos, YouTube is not the platform for you. YouTube never claimed to be an everlasting video storage space for all your video needs, so I'm not sure why you're expecting that of them.

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

#287

Post by pyrale »

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?

AT&T Verizon, Comcast are also companies. But Google and FB campaigned to have them labeled as utilities and regulated accordingly.

Let us simply label Google (search, yt, news) and FB as utilities and regulate them too.

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

#288

Post by fastball »

ComodoHacker wrote: post #94
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.

>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.

If it's so important than maybe, yes, these orgs should have some means other than YouTube.

If it's so important, these orgs should maybe build their own platform that is purely about video longevity.

Expecting a private company to host content they don't want to host is silly.

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

#289

Post by fastball »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #248
colejohnson66 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because YouTube doesn’t care about the videos; it cares about the advertisers. You can’t be a proponent of free speech (extremist propaganda) while trying to please advertisers. Also, with today’s political climate, people seem like they want anything that disagrees with them to be labeled as hate speech.

The advertisers would find it suitable to chase a bubble e.g. greens, nationalists, globalist, feminist, religions etc. I think a good strong case can be made to advertisers that their ad will only be served to people opting into a certain bubble. Or reverse of that i.e. show my Ads to all people except those who are in this bubble. Inclusion list and exclusion list.

That only works if all your "bubbles" are palatable bubbles.

What advertiser is going to want to advertise in front of ISIS/Neo-Nazi videos?

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

#290

Post by fastball »

7373737373 wrote: post #143
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because if the consequences are unknown, there is no intent, and intent is necessary for complicity.

If Google/people at Google made an algorithm to intentionally delete criminal evidence, that would qualify. Having an algorithm that deletes lots of things, and happens to delete evidence does not.

Post reply on HN