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

241–250 of 744 posts

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#241

Post by makomk »

randyrand wrote: post #52
wnevets wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think you're right to free speech has anything to do with what you can say on someone else's property?

He just answered that. It’s not only about it being our most important right. We also expect our communications platforms have morality, and criticize them when they do immoral things. Many think belief in free speech is an important moral - doubly important for communications companies like Youtube/Google.

The thing that gets me is, the folks who think Google should delete such content have no trouble with the idea that services have moral obligations which go beyond what's legally required of them when arguing they should remove stuff. It's only when someone argues the moral obligation goes the other way that it suddenly becomes about what's legally required and only that.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#242

Post by creaghpatr »

Animats wrote: post #221

Not good. What's "extreme"? Medicare for All? Brietbart News? Islam? Haredi? School shootings? Kim Jong-un? Putin? Trump? YouTube already tries to transcribe videos to text. Is it within the state of the art to recognize common false statements and superimpose a crawl with counterarguments? One thing you have going for you is that the nuts aren't that original. If you had a classifier that could pick up the 100 best…

It's up to the advertisers really, think cable TV. A little bit of edginess, but if it gets crazy a boycott can force an advertiser pull out. We're only a few years away from YouTube turing into cable TV, maybe even the FCC will get involved in making that determination.

Edit: I don't agree that advertisers should be in charge, I just think they will ultimately decide the line between edgy and extreme.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#243

Post by llamataboot »

I think the difference is that YouTube /pays these people/. It's almost an employer/employee relationship.

YouTube generates revenue, youtube shares that revenue, contributors with tons of views are making money directly from YT.

This is simply not the same as Twitter, etc. Twitter may make money off of eyeballs. I may somehow make money by becoming twitter famous. But my money is not coming as a share of twitter revenue.

The incentives are all screwed up. YT benefits financially the more 'shocking' my vid can be, and I benefit financially if YT does.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#244

Post by iaeqi »

ctlby wrote: post #233
vowelless wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

White supremacy was the cause for the worst wars of the 20th century. A white nationalist uprising in Europe would be deadlier (again) than Islamic extremists taking over most middle eastern nations due to the resources that will be available to them.

Leftism was the cause of the worst crimes of the 20th century (whose death tolls wildly exceed even that of WWII). The real tail risk resides in views that are considered perfectly respectable.

Wow just wow. Yikes, another antisemitic hate crime comment today here on HN. Vile.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#245

Post by ceejayoz »

Romanulus wrote: post #197
chrisjc wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> White supremacy is a much bigger deal with a worse tail risk than Islamic extremism. Wait... you're saying that white supremacy is worse than islamic extremism? Is you opinion perhaps a manifestation of your perspective? I'm sure there are some people in Syria, Afghanistan, etc... that would disagree with you. BTW, I'm not saying one is worse than the other, just that they are both bad, both a problem, and both sho…

I'd be willing to say Islamic extremism is worse than white supremacy.

Maybe focusing on which is worse (itself something difficult to define - do you count just death toll? respective groups' political power and impact? future murdering potential? self-inflicted damage like airport security theater and civil liberties?) is a mistake, and we could just go with "both are really, really bad and should be strongly opposed"?

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#246

Post by nailer »

0815test wrote: post #160
vowelless wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

White supremacy was the cause for the worst wars of the 20th century. A white nationalist uprising in Europe would be deadlier (again) than Islamic extremists taking over most middle eastern nations due to the resources that will be available to them.

"White supremacy" wasn't involved in either WW1 or WW2. And "a white nationalist uprising in Europe" is a contradiction in terms, since Europeans do not in any way identify with a "white nation" of any sort. This whole "rah rah whites " stuff is something that people in the U.S. came up with during the Progressive Era, as a supposedly-'unifying' alternative to national/ethnic identities , some of which were quite ope…

I’m not sure why this is being down voted, 'white' is very much an American concept.

British people are not French people are not Hungarians are not Greeks are not Italians are not Spanish people.

We're Europeans, but we have very distinct and different cultures and we don't regard ourselves as 'whites' - it's rare (outside radical left circles) for Europeans to speak that way.

The native people of most Mediterranean regions - Spain, Southern France, Italy, Greece and Turkey don't have pale skin - it would be odd to speak of 'whites'.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#247

Post by pwinnski »

skrowl wrote: post #199
javagram wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law is specifically written for that case, as noted in my excerpt. AOL had a contract allowing them to censor their contractor’s work, did not censor it (although they did moderate and censor various content on their service), and was still held immune from liability. The CDA basically grants publishers the ability to have their cake and eat it too, so you’d need to change the law.

I hope your views are never found to be 'extreme' and you're deplatformed due to it

It is one thing to be concerned about deplatforming--a concern I share--and another to argue against legal realities--as you've been doing.

What one wants and what is are not always the same.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#248

Post by whenchamenia »

jonas21 wrote: post #153
warp_factor wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because it became the de facto place most of non tech-savy people go to to see videos online. They have a huge monopoly on our time and attention and that's extremely disturbing. Imagine that the electricity company providing electricity policed what kind of devices you can use inside your home (you are allowed to connect a Samsung washer but not a Bosh washer). There would be a lot of outcry.

Perhaps I'm taking your analogy too far, but if you're an "extreme" user of electricity, either by consuming much more power than they expect you to or destabilizing the grid, the electric company absolutely will cut you off.

Or set up a perferred corprate customer account.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#249

Post by redog »

Mirioron wrote: post #203
redog wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait what? The first amendment protections are just a limit on GOVERNMENT power. The right is that THE GOVERNMENT won't prevent your speech. Youtube isn't the government, therefore they can limit the fuck out of your speech when you're on their property. I think most agree that Government needs to be prevented from preventing our speech not that our neighbors must allow us to grandstand upon their property even if th…

Free speech is a natural right. The first amendment protects that right explicitly from the government, but if they didn't then that doesn't mean you wouldn't have that right. There's a reason why that same idea is encoded in human rights as well. Platforms like YouTube have basically become the public square. A lot of political engagement happens on platforms like YouTube. Perhaps we should expect them to offer free…

>Free speech is a natural right. .... that doesn't mean you wouldn't have that right.

Yes but still they have theirs also. That's what people don't seem to connect between the two. You have no right to my property and all the right to say what the hell you like. Just because I offer my property as a place to speak doesn't mean I have to offer my property without restrictions, how about bearing arms? Why then could a church or school prevent my being armed?

If an individual can change the terms of our property use agreement by saying anything he wants on my property when I object then cannot I change terms by kicking him and his "publication/broadcast" off of my property? Seems a pretty straight forward contract dispute to me. You may enjoy your rights on your property.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#250

Post by Nasrudith »

jsonne wrote: post #234

It's curious to me that people who were absolutely up in arms about ISPs censoring content are 100% okay with Youtube doing it. Not that I support the views that these videos they're removing espouse (I don't) but it seems to me to be a pretty big about face by this community.

Well YouTube isn't a pipe but a platform in spite of its popularity. I can always head someplace else with a website. I can't just switch ISPs casually as entering a different URL.
Post reply on HN