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

291–300 of 334 posts

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

#291

Post by 4ad »

afarrell wrote: post #275
4ad wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A YouTube clone is expensive. A YouTube clone that uses a clone of YouTube's infrastructure is expensive, but what about a distributed p2p YouTube clone? Obviously it's hard to quantify, as it doesn't exist yet, but I think it's technologically feasible.

Meaning, you just have data stored on people's hard drives? That would be more expensive because - You have a much higher failure rate of the storage media as people say "I'm running out of hard drive space. What should I get rid of?" - You need to recruit those people to give up a resource that (unlike the spare compute cycles that SETI uses) they are likely currently using. - You have to convince people to trust yo…

> You have a much higher failure rate of the storage media as people say "I'm running out of hard drive space. What should I get rid of?"

Not really, because data is replicated between many people. People can delete it and other people would still have it.

> You need to recruit those people to give up a resource that (unlike the spare compute cycles that SETI uses) they are likely currently using.

It's no different than people seeding torrents or people just using ipfs. Simply accessing the system would transparently increase availability. In fact, ipfs is probably suited as-is.

> You have to convince people to trust you to put arbitrary video content on their hard drives. Therefore, you need to have some process for deciding what video content is objectionable enough that you won't store it.

No, data will become more accessible as people would consume it. People only need to understand how the system works, they don't need to trust "me" (whoever you refer as "you" in your post).

As I said, ipfs probably works as-is.

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

#292

Post by tetromino_ »

Often there is no difference between war crime evidence and war crime glorification that machine learning could discern. Exactly the same content could be interpreted as "look at us do great things in defense of our noble ideals!" and "look at these monsters do horrific things for no justifiable reason!".

The difference is in the audience's mindset - which is only partially influenced by the uploader's intentions, and partially by how other pages and channels link to the video and present it, and partially by historical context (the same content can acquire a different interpretation five years down the road). Machine learning cannot be expected to emulate that.

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

#293

Post by arca_vorago »

detaro wrote: post #120
arca_vorago wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I also suggest mpsyt(mps-youtube). GPL cli YouTube interface that will open your player of choice. I hardly use the web interface anymore. I wish goblin would take off.

Do you mean https://mediagoblin.org/ , or something else?

Yep, I meant mediagoblin.

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

#294

Post by dunkelheit »

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…

I think the notion that machine learning algorithms are "unreasonable and impenetrable" is seen as a huge PR boon by these companies as it shifts the responsibility away from actual humans. So they try hard to promote it.

The fact is that there is always a human in the loop. Without human supervision these algorithms deliver a small but significant portion of incredibly stupid results. So an actual human has to sit down, analyze these results one by one and decide what to do (in some cases just hardcoding the "correct" answer). The general public must be educated about this stuff so that responsibility is not muddled.

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

#295

Post by tripzilch »

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's somewhat similar to emailing someone a request and signing off with "thanks in advance", implying not just the request but the expectation of honouring it, too.

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

#296

Post by lightedman »

4ad wrote: post #272
icebraining wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An YouTube clone is expensive . TPB only hosts simple HTML pages (they no longer have torrent files, and even those were just a few KBs), not files with hundreds of MBs or more. As others said, the Internet Archive may be a good option for these videos. I wouldn't mind writing a system for backing them up to archive.org, but I'm not sure how would I detect them. Marking those videos requires the user to know they sho…

> A YouTube clone is expensive. A YouTube clone that uses a clone of YouTube's infrastructure is expensive, but what about a distributed p2p YouTube clone? Obviously it's hard to quantify, as it doesn't exist yet, but I think it's technologically feasible.

"what about a distributed p2p YouTube clone"

Same reason Bitcoin and its ilk can't scale. Decentralization throws in essentially a log x exp growth rate on bandwidth and storage for every additional peer on the network. Technology can't keep pace, period.

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

#297

Post by jjoonathan »

dunkelheit wrote: post #294
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…

I think the notion that machine learning algorithms are "unreasonable and impenetrable" is seen as a huge PR boon by these companies as it shifts the responsibility away from actual humans. So they try hard to promote it. The fact is that there is always a human in the loop. Without human supervision these algorithms deliver a small but significant portion of incredibly stupid results. So an actual human has to sit d…

Yep. The usual incarnation of the scapegoat is "policy." It sounds much better to blame a byzantine rulebook (which is the perfect tool for diffusion-of-responsibility) than to reveal that the strategists have decided to throw a subset of customers under the bus. In the case of monopoly, sometimes it's not even a subset.

Incidentally, this also explains why there is zero interest in making rulebooks available, conscise, searchable, etc. All of these would improve fairness, but rulebooks are actually an instrument of power, not of fairness, so existing power structures will typically oppose any such changes.

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

#298

Post by tentaTherapist »

beejiu wrote: post #10
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.

An organiziation should not be free of criticism simply because it does not have an obligation to do or not do something.

Yes, but lots of people are suggesting regulation, which is more than just criticism.

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

#299

Post by Faark »

Eridrus wrote: post #277
PeanutCurry wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion the important thing to remember is that Youtube could easily do something about this. It seems like there's a trend in a lot tech-centric companies to save money automating away actual content review as well as customer interaction. But humans are entirely capable of reviewing content and giving detailed explanations for why something has been judged a certain way, especially if you have them work along…

Try some back of the envelope math to see if it is possible. Start with 300 hours of video uploaded every minute. I calculated the cost to be 6bn USD/yr assuming the fully loaded cost of a full time reviewer is 20k, which dwarfs the revenue YouTube has. So please, lay out a plan that actually works with the economics of YouTube.

What about payed arbitrators? The bad incentives i can imagine are less bad than the current system. E.g. for a DMCA dispute, each party could give YT maybe $5 to have a look at the case, winner will get his share back. If the case isn't obvious both get it back and a court has to decide. Non-payment means yielding. For YT vs user, YT would only pay in case their algorithm is wrong. Those cases would need some 3rd party arbitrator, thou...

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

#300

Post by Kequc »

fastball wrote: post #286
CaptSpify wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

It's in part because that is what Google has done in the past. They give you unlimited space to store your photos, your email, and your data, why wouldn't you expect to be able to store video.

Video has become politicised because it is a popular medium for political topics and one which can be rapidly produced and consumed. Advertisers are perhaps influencing Google's decisions on this, but they are equally political. The debacle with the diversity memo is one example of biases inside of the company. There have been many more examples over the last years, one such example is censorship across the board of conservative commentators.

It goes on in Facebook, Twitter and so on. So we have to wait for competitors to turn up, how many years will that take? Is that a responsible route considering the foothold these companies have?

Post reply on HN