Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 744 posts

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#211

Post by busterarm »

skrowl wrote: post #163
javagram wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, this would be a major shift in the law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communica... > The court upheld AOL's immunity from liability for defamation. AOL's agreement with the contractor allowing AOL to modify or remove such content did not make AOL the "information content provider" because the content was created by an independent contractor. The Court noted that Congress made a policy choic…

No it's not, if Facebook / Youtube / etc are found to be PUBLISHERS. AOL in the case you mentioned was being looked at as an open / neutral platform. I'm saying that clearly Facebook / Youtube no longer fit that definition due to the censorship mentioned in OP.

I'm perfectly happy with the legal option of Facebook being a publisher instead of a platform.

That way if somebody publishes false information or doxxes me, I can sue the pants off of Facebook and I'll win.

They are desperate for this _not_ to happen. It would literally put them out of business.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#212

Post by vinceguidry »

vowelless wrote: post #144
baud147258 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> White supremacy is a much bigger deal with a worse tail risk Do you have anything to support that assertion?

WW2.

White supremacy can be reasonably credited for the Holocaust, but not for the war itself. The usual intervention after a major war was for a few hundred years to carve up the major belligerent into smaller states. This happened fairly regularly throughout the early modern period but curiously stopped being a thing after the Napoleonic wars.

I suspect this is because carving France back up into kingdoms at that point would have left Germany the sole uncontested power of Europe. Wars and nations were just getting too big to fail. When this fear materialized with Germany and Austria-Hungary teamed up to try to take over Europe again, while Austria-Hungary were divided into their constituent nation-states, Germany was expected to pay war reparations and so was kept largely intact so wealth could be extracted.

These war reparations are ultimately what drove WW2, by breaking the backs of the Germans, making them extremely receptive to populist politics.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#213

Post by busterarm »

AndrewStephens wrote: post #180
skrowl wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google / Facebook are private companies, and they should absolutely be able to pick and choose what is posted on their platform if they want. However, they SHOULD NOT be able to have it both ways where they censor posts they don't like (like a publisher would do) but enjoy protections afforded to actual open / neutral platforms. Once you start censoring things that aren't breaking any laws, you're now a PUBLISHER and…

Youtube has always been a PUBLISHER. They have never been an OPEN PLATFORM in any real sense. They have so far managed to shirk responsibility for PUBLISHING hateful content while being amazingly on-the-ball when dealing with copyrighted material. I am sure YouTube wouldn't put it in these terms, but from the outside it looks like every day they make the editorial decision to enforce copyrights while pushing hate spe…

If they are a publisher, then I can sue them for users posting false information about me or putting me in harm's way.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#214

Post by HBKXNCUO »

Retra wrote: post #200
HBKXNCUO wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn't decide to guarantee free speech in "public spaces" for funsies. We did it because guaranteeing people the ability to meaningfully participate in the public political debate is a preventative measure against real world violence. If people cannot peacefully advocate for their interests, they are going to do so violently. The fact of the matter is that places like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are where a sub…

If their interests are to advocate for violence, why would you expect their ability to advocate in public to lead to peace?

Everyone advocates for violence in some circumstances, except perfect pacifists.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#216

Post by Notorious_BLT »

api wrote: post #70

YouTube is a privately owned and operated proprietary delivery platform. This is no different from a TV station deciding what to air. If you don't like it, switch platforms or just host stuff yourself somewhere. Yes I am concerned that these dragnets will delete a lot of content that doesn't even match the stated criteria. In my experience Google/YouTube's evaluation of content for compliance is not very deep or well…

If YouTube wants to be treated like a TV station who can choose what to air, then they need to stop receiving the benefits of section 230. If they are allowed to choose what content is allowed and what is not, then they must be held directly accountable for the content that they don't remove. This includes content that infringes copyright, content that is illegal, etc. They can't have both.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#217

Post by untog »

throwaway190605 wrote: post #170
untog wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're not talking about the removal of extreme political views. Yes we are. You are implying equivalence where there is none. Black Lives Matter and Antifa are not equivalent to white supremacists.

You're arguing with the least interesting part of my point. Just watch how many radical left videos get removed, irrespective of what group posted them.

You appear to not be understanding my point. The videos being removed are not some "radical right" that serves as the opposite of your definition of "radical left". They are "channels that advocate for neo-Nazism, white supremacy and other bigoted ideologies". BLM, Antifa, etc. are not the "left" equivalent of these "right" viewpoints.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#219

Post by remarkEon »

busterarm wrote: post #64
GrayTextIsTruth wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> other bigoted ideologies That's not specific enough. What about people who want to preserve European culture but don't think its "superior" to any other culture?

What about people with conservative religious beliefs that others perceive to be exclusionary?

Or if you have concerns about high levels of immigration and it’s relationship to overall cohesion of society.

Views that were nominally conservative not long ago (and were actually also held by a lot of democrats) get recast as “Nazi!!1!1” in today’s environment. Weird historical inflection point we’re at.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#220

Post by anigbrowl »

stcredzero wrote: post #192
anigbrowl wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when the pretext of "threatening speech" is used to censor people on false pretexts Sounds circular but you do you.

False pretexts are a subset of pretexts. It's only circular if you are not precise with the logic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection,_injection_and_surje...

Perhaps you should have written your initial interjection with the same precision you now seek to apply. Since it was written in English, I invite you to reflect on how it might be received by the unwary reader.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Post reply on HN