Live data from Hacker News

YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

middleeasteye.net

331–334 of 334 posts

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

#331
post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Youtube allowed porn for ages? Here's an article from 2006 saying youtube at that time banned porn, and made no reference to it being allowed in the past.[1]

Youtube doesn't hide the fact that it bans certain content.[2] And this page isn't new, in fact it looks nearly identical to how it did in 2013.[3]

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2006/07/25/youtube-has-porn-clone/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/yt/policyandsafety/policy.html

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20130416013037/https://www.youtu...

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

#332
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proposing a legal change isn't appealing to government authority. It's asserting that we should formalize a social attitude into a rule. Complaining about government as paternalistic intervenor ignores the right of people to shape government to work on their behalf, which is the reason they are instituted to begin with. So what that society 'allows' you to start up your own business? The economic and logistical barri…

Complaining about government as paternalistic intervenor ignores the right of people to shape government to work on their behalf, which is the reason they are instituted to begin with. Anigbrowl, I'm sure you and I are just going to have to disagree on that one. The purpose of the federal government in the USA is to execute its duties in the Constitution within its enumerated powers agreed to by the States that ratif…

Well, I certainly disagree with your rhetorical bait-and-switch here.

checks and balances and enumerated government powers were put in there explicitly to constrain those in government and prevent them from thinking that they could shape the government however they wanted without fundamentally altering the Constitution through new amendments.

I was talking about people, as in the electoral, shaping government to suit the public interest, whether by the passage of laws or by constitutional amendment.

For some reason you switched that out with 'those in government' - whether you mean professional politicians or bureaucrats, this is a completely different thing to what I was talking about.

Treating the government like it's a parent there to fix all problems for the children has led to failed state after failed state as leaders assume more and more power over their people.

You're the one asserting that government is being used that way. I say that the regulatory role of government is entirely valid and constitutional and reject your claim of paternalism. Your argument is tantamount to saying that any kind of legislation is questionable because it undermines the constitutional role of government, which is absurd.

But the left still doesn't seem to grasp the fact that Trump isn't as bad as it can get - assuming he doesn't do something that makes things even worse. Keep increasing the power of government and a future incarnation of Trump will really terrify you.

You don't seem to get that the left understands this perfectly well, and indeed better than you. You seem to imagine that dictatorships result from an excessively powerful government whose levers are suddenly seized by a bad actor and switches to becoming evil overnight. In reality institutions (both formal and informal) are corroded over time, from within. Hitler had been in power almost a decade before the nazi government began to implement the 'final solution.' You may wish to reflect that the Nazis never abrogated the Weimar Constitution but maintained it as a legal figleaf for their totalitarian policies. The US Constitution is similarly capable of exploitation, eg via a3s2.

Your thesis seems to be 'we must keep government weak so that it can never be used to oppress us' but this is absurd on its face. What keeps governments in line is the granting or withholding of the consent of the governed.

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

#333
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has always existed. We call it bureaucracy.

Bureaucracies are staffed with humans who have the capacity to make a judgement call on how to interpret the rules, and bend their letter to serve their spirit, or the interests of pubic relations, or just common sense.

I disagree. Have you ever been to the CA DMV with a photo of your license (that you lost/had stolen)? I have. They told me I needed a copy of my lost license to get a new one, or else the man couldn't validate my identity.

Bureaucratic hell, as defined by Harry Harrison in the Stainless Steel Rat series, is the definition of humans as automata.

Post reply on HN