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

321–330 of 334 posts

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

#321

Post by fastball »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #303
fastball wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why, the store that sells Nazi paraphernalia on Amazon, of course. People who sell NAZI books. Jokes aside, why does it matter that Advertisers are not choosing certain 'unpalatable' bubbles to not be associated with those channels, that's perfectly fine. You seem to be concerned about extremist videos making money, I don't care about that at all. I just want all videos to be available unless legal system demands its…

1. Every video YouTube hosts on its platform costs YouTube money.

2. YouTube recoups the cost and makes a tidy profit from ad revenue.

3. Videos you can't put ads in front of can't be monetized.

4. Videos that can't be monetized still cost YouTube to process, host and serve.

5. As such, every non-monetizable video hurts YouTube's bottom line.

6. Why would YouTube want that?

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

#322

Post by fastball »

Kequc wrote: post #300
fastball wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, absolutely, you have to wait for a competitor to turn up. Or you can build a platform yourself, it's not difficult to do, especially in 2017. Hosting is cheap, video codecs are open source, there are a lot of companies that are willing to negotiate advertising partnerships. YouTube is a private businesses, fuck your privilege.

ALSO: I don't know about you, but this so-called "censoring" of conservative commentators doesn't seem to have worked. I see more young people skewing right/centre than I did 10 years ago. You can call it censorship if you want (because sure, that's probably the best term), but implying that a company selectively hosting content is the same thing as limiting the free exercise of speech is absurd.

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

#323

Post by cabalamat »

fastball wrote: post #322
Kequc wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, absolutely, you have to wait for a competitor to turn up. Or you can build a platform yourself, it's not difficult to do, especially in 2017. Hosting is cheap, video codecs are open source, there are a lot of companies that are willing to negotiate advertising partnerships. YouTube is a private businesses, fuck your privilege. ALSO: I don't know about you, but this so-called "censoring" of conservative commentat…

> I see more young people skewing right/centre than I did 10 years ago.

Probably for this reason: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/

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

#324

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

ucaetano wrote: post #312
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anyone can deny any service to anyone for any reason?

Are you sure you are sold on right outcome of the baker/LGBT wedding-cake case? How about a pharmacist not telling correct/all options based on their theology?

How about a publicly traded corporation? Do they have a mandate to treat people equally? If they are picking a political viewpoint and removing customers because of it, what makes you think that their hiring practices are fair?

Google has a religion now, it has been baptized in the religion of intolerant left. Google is now theocratic, it will not allow blasphemous talk that challenges its religion.

Google claimed to champion Net-Neutrality, don't open the packet, they said to the ISPs. They want to resist opening of TCP/IP packet but when it comes to content of the videos, they want to play God. TCP/IP packet or Video, let the legal system take its course, let authorities tell you to ban something, don't play God on the platform that is valuable because of the sum number of people on it. YouTube is a social network, its value comes from people participating in it, treat the people equally and be an neutral steward of the platform technology, don't push ideology. Anyway, Google has damaged its image too much now. It will never be seen with same affection again, at least not by me.

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

#325

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

fastball wrote: post #321
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why, the store that sells Nazi paraphernalia on Amazon, of course. People who sell NAZI books. Jokes aside, why does it matter that Advertisers are not choosing certain 'unpalatable' bubbles to not be associated with those channels, that's perfectly fine. You seem to be concerned about extremist videos making money, I don't care about that at all. I just want all videos to be available unless legal system demands its…

1. Every video YouTube hosts on its platform costs YouTube money. 2. YouTube recoups the cost and makes a tidy profit from ad revenue. 3. Videos you can't put ads in front of can't be monetized. 4. Videos that can't be monetized still cost YouTube to process, host and serve. 5. As such, every non-monetizable video hurts YouTube's bottom line. 6. Why would YouTube want that?

YouTube decided that it will demonetize videos. They preferred to do that for some complains by some Advertisers, rather than giving Advertisers tools to avoid/select certain channels or certain topics. Very similar concept to AdWords, BanWords! Put the Advertiser in control of where the Ad gets shown or specifically, where it doesn't get shown. Demonetization was an ideological decision by Google, it was a political decision.

>As such, every non-monetizable video hurts YouTube's bottom line.

Even every non-monetized video is still eyes on the screen for Google. NetFlix claims to compete with books & libraries for time of the day from its viewers. Yeah, Google may not show Ad on that video but the next one in autoplay/recommended list is still going to ring the cash register. It is actually better for Google because they may very well show Ads but not pay the De-Monetized content creators, videos that they created actually act as leads to youtube. These political videos is where a reader is sent to youtube from non-youtube sites, which is much more valuable to google and they are getting away by not paying anything for that. Leading video is much more valuable to google than a video in auto-play list. Not pay for leads but get paid for Ads on subsequent videos, very nice business model win-win Google developed for itself.

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

#326

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

Buge wrote: post #311
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 youtu…

>So youtube should allow porn, gore, etc?

It had, for ages.

>Youtube also has freedom of speech. They have the freedom to filter and compile videos that they like and only show those.

Sure they do. I wish they were honest about their political ideology before they touted the platform for all to come and participate.

>It's my website after all, I am allowed to control what is on it.

Sure you are. I just wish you had advertised as such before content creators invested time and money into the platform, creating user base for you. That's a bait and switch, no different than Apache to AGPL license change on 27.8.3 version of your successful GitHub project.

A private entity and a public corporation and government are three different levels of individual discriminatory behavior. A private person or business can employ any discriminatory practice they see fit, as you yourself say. A government is held at highest standard of equality for all. A publicly traded corporation is somewhere in between the government and a private citizen.

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

#327

Post by softawre »

tripzilch wrote: post #305
Spivak wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. While I agree that would be the most sensible course of action, if this in reality happened right now , the whole video would be deleted in both cases, automatically (assuming it's clear enough to trigger detection in…

Nope, today they mute the audio.

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

#328

Post by afarrell »

4ad wrote: post #291
afarrell wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> because data is replicated between many people

Yes, so you are designing a distributed system with a higher failure rate of the underlying media. That means you need more replication, so you need more people to donate space.

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

#329

Post by alexryan »

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 don’t think that Larry and Sergey yet fully grasp the consequences of allowing an echo chamber to form within google. One of the consequences of living in an echo chamber is that we rob ourselves of the feedback that we need to make good decisions. For example, many of us on the left who only listen to those who think like us are blissfully unaware of the severity of the storm that is building on the right and the consequences for the business.

Google’s whole future business model seems to be based on getting deeper into our lives, into our homes, into our vehicles and gathering ever more data about us so they can more effectively help others to market to us. Many of us have been completely okay with that in past because we trust Google. They’ve worked hard to earn that trust. But with the public shaming and firing of James Damore, the blacklisting of “non believers”, the demonetizing and deleting of YouTube videos that violate the “Code of Conduct”, etc. the bonds of trust have been shattered. And once trust has been shattered, it is nearly impossible to re-build.

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

#330

Post by [deleted] »

megous wrote: post #57
mozumder wrote: post #18

Can't any prosecutor gain access to those videos via subpoena anyways?

What are you talking about? They are deleting entire accounts of people who were filming their cities/districts being bombed by Russians, Assad or US/Coalition. (where there may not be any direct violence to any particular persons visible) Who will prosecute whom? Primary source historical material is being removed wholesale by some shitty "AI". Account of recent history is being erased. Researchers who want to put s…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN