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

311–320 of 334 posts

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

#311

Post by Buge »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #245
Buge wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Terrorist induction videos would clearly fall into Not-legal category. I think NSA can easily stand up resources to scan new videos as they arrive and tag as legal or not-legal. Or, we can demand a judge's decision on taking away someone's freedom of speech as the constitution clearly indicates. And, I have a hunch that three letter acronym gov organizations dealing with keeping us safe would rather know who is inter…

So you're saying that youtube should only ban illegal videos and allow any video that is legal? So youtube should allow porn, gore, etc?

Freedom of speech only says the government can't stop your speech. It doesn't say that private organizations have to provide you a platform. Youtube also has freedom of speech. They have the freedom to filter and compile videos that they like and only show those. It's also not youtube's responsibility to optimize their site for helping the NSA to track terrorists.

If I create a website that allows people to upload videos, it's perfectly fine for me to filter those videos and only show the ones I like. It's my website after all, I am allowed to control what is on it.

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

#312

Post by ucaetano »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #249
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 mean, why not wait till it is deemed illegal by the authorities and due process? How can you take away someone's freedom of speech? It's not like the AI has absolute idea of what is 'extremist' content, it's just enforcing someone idea of what it is. AI is trained on data, and whoever labeled that data is the person/s who are winning here.

> How can you take away someone's freedom of speech?

Nobody is taking away your freedom of speech by deleting your video.

Nobody is mandated to provide you with a vehicle or medium for your speech.

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

#313

Post by chii »

the8472 wrote: post #241
djrogers wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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". I don’t think that’s always the mindset. Isn’t it reasonable for people to have the mindset of “I want to go to sites that don’t have content that I find objectionable”? This way websites can decide which group of people they want to cater to.

The context of the discussion is large websites acting as platforms. Their users are bound to have conflicting views about what's "objectionable". So when the moderation mechanism is deletion instead of letting users just filter then the website has to preferentially treat one group instead of being a platform for everyone.

But the deeper issue is that done people don't want certain content to even exist, and won't be satisfied with just a filter (even thought they can't tell the difference between filter and deletion).

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

#314

Post by chii »

averagewall wrote: post #222
the8472 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think Youtube censors extremist content because "I" don't want to see it. It's because "I" don't want anyone else to see it! There's no use me filtering my own videos if my goal is to limit what other people see.

This is at the heart of the issue: should platforms bow down and allow some users to dictate what others are allowed to see? Or should a platform remain neutral against anything (which means potential back lash)?

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

#315

Post by robertlagrant »

Quanttek wrote: post #273
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…

Agree to disagree. This isn't really an issue of a lack of absolute free speech but instead has much more to do with AI gone bad. With any reasonable definition of free speech (i.e. limited) it would've been wrong to remove footage documenting war crimes - hell even with a highly restricted free speech. Freedom of speech is not inherenlty the highest value there possibly is. You should be able to defend something lik…

'Using your definition of freedom of speech we could easily justify not outlawing murder: "We should just educate people not to murder each other instead of banning it."'

Freedom of speech is a very high value because sometimes extremist views (such as "we should rebel against the British") are a good idea, yet if there are anti-extremism laws, this sort of idea would never be surfaced, because extremism can be defined however the enforcer chooses to define it.

Why you think this also applies to murder?

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

#316

Post by bryanrasmussen »

likelynew wrote: post #191
the8472 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

German law against Pro-Nazi stuff would be an obvious example. Then child pornography. 'Normal porn' in some cultures...

the thing is law requirements do not generally allow you just to clear your cache of the offending content, the company is not allowed to show it.

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

#318

Post by rmc »

stephen82 wrote: post #163
the8472 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the only solution is a distributed and decentralized web. Distributed hosting of static content is a sorta-solved problem. But curating, linking and discoverability (which require mutating content) is a lot harder due to the trust anchor problem.

Your suggestion exists and has a name: bitchute. I will paste here what they have for "About" at the end of their main page: BitChute is a peer to peer content sharing platform. Our mission is to put people and free speech first. It is free to join, create and upload your own content to share with others. Feel free to read more about it in their FAQ. I really want to stop using YouTube and use this instead. I hope th…

Warning: it has this channel https://www.bitchute.com/channel/whitepower/ which is full of anti-semitic nazi stuff. It's visible on the front page listed above. You may or may not want to visit that link.

Channels aren't open to everyone, so it looks like they have manually allowed that?

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

#319

Post by rmc »

the8472 wrote: post #189
vidarh wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem on these distributed platforms is not filtering what people see , but filtering what people host or allow to transit their network connections. > In a decentralized system you also skip the law requirements since you cannot enforce multiple incompatible jurisdictions at the platform level, individual users will be responsible for enforcing it on their own nodes, similar how all you can do when accidentall…

First of all, not all p2p networks operate like Tor. For example bittorrent and ipfs only host content you look at. So hosters could largely self-select the content they replicate. Secondly, there are several tiers of content. a) stuff that is illegal to host b) stuff that is not illegal but that you find so objectionable that you don't even want to host it c) stuff that you don't like but doesn't bother you too much…

> And even if you are on a network where you randomly host content you never looked at encryption can provide you some peace of mind ... If neither you nor others can know what flows through or is stored on your node it would be difficult to mount pressure against anyone to disconnect.

I think you misunderstand the objection. Yes, encryption can mean you cannot be persecuted for "hosting"/"transmitting" some objectionable stuff, since you can prove that you had no idea (at least that's the theory).

However some want to be able to "vote with their wallets" (well "vote with their bandwidth"). They don't want to assist in the transmission of some content, they want that content to be hard to find, and slow and unreliable. They have the right to freedom of association and don't want to associate with those groups. Encryption cannot guaranatee that I won't help transmit $CONTENT.

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

#320

Post by mustacheemperor »

PeterisP wrote: post #276
mustacheemperor wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They quite likely have some humans verify the content - however, the criteria most likely are quite straightforward (depictions of the deaths violate their guidelines). They don't provide the judgement because that only invites attempts of explaining and negotiation - they don't want to spend time to do a careful review of every contested video, they want to make an usually accurate final judgement with the minimum t…

Sure, but returning to the original point - by that token, why should YouTube have any obligation or even judicial ability to retain videos like this on "the back end?"

It is indeed YouTube's right to vaporize any bits at any time. But when they are the leading video platform on the entire web by a huge margin they need to at least adequately present the reality of their content guidelines to users in countries like Syria who are probably not focused on researching alternative video hosts while trying to document chemical weapons attacks.

Post reply on HN