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

251–260 of 744 posts

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#251

Post by radiator »

nyczomg wrote: post #210

From the article: 'The new policy will ban “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion,” the company said in a blog post.' Is this going to include videos that mention "white privilege" (which one could argue alleges superiority of white people) in which white people are asked to "check their privilege" in some way (which one could argue is an attempt to just…

No, because white privilege cannot be denied and exclusion against whites can never exist.

But you should tread carefully, asking such questions.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#252

Post by jhardy54 »

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.

Just wait until you see the death tolls of capitalism in general.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#253

Post by javagram »

radiator wrote: post #222
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.

... did not censor it (although they did moderate and censor various content on their service) ... What does this mean? I don't understand at all.

Did you ever use AOL? It was similar to a website today. There was a search feature, you could view content on it, and so on. They exercised editorial judgment and removed content. Nevertheless, they were found immune from liability for a piece of third party content on their service that they did not remove.

Just follow the link and look up the various legal cases if you want to know more.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#254

Post by pwinnski »

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…

Except in a legal sense, which has been the only sense that matters.

If enough people get upset, things could change, but notable it is primarily the lack of censorship that is upsetting people, so it appears the status quo of YouTube being an open platform with some censorship (Section 230 style) will continue.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#255

Post by okket »

daenz wrote: post #55
okket wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No censorship. You are still free to create your own YouTube clone and publish your extreme political views there. Maybe call it "GabTube"?

GoDaddy banned the gab.com domain name from their registrar. What's next? "No censorship. You are still free to establish your own telecommunications infrastructure and publish your extreme political views there." ?

If your political view you want to promote is so extreme that no company wants to do business with you, although they legally could and you offer good money, then, yes, probably you have to build your own TelCo or Internet or whatever.

Also note: YouTube is already a heavily moderated platform, see pornography.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#256

Post by kypro »

What I find funny about all this is that I'm certain if YouTube existed a few decades earlier we would likely be under pressure to ban "disgusting" pro-LGBT content or content supporting things as "vile" as interracial relationships.

We would say, these private companies have a duty not to radicalise our children. That our children are being led away from god and into sinful lifestyles like homosexuality.

Some of us would welcome our views being censored by a few execs in silicon valley because we would see them defending the moral values of the status-quo...

Surely I'm not the only one who feels it might be a little short sighted to give a handful of billionaires like Zuckerberg control over what we can and can't express in the 21st century?

If we're so concerned and don't want to see content we morally disagree with, why can't we have family friendly modes?

I for one am glad we were all radicalised to support the "homosexual agenda". I'm glad we were radicalised by people like MLK to resist racism. And sure, there were some extremists along the way who took it upon themselves to commit acts of terrorism for the "greater good", but we understood these people were rare and this was the unfortunate, but necessary cost of liberty.

So before we continue too far down this road, are we certain we have all the answers now? If someone can be banned from social media sites for stating biological (but perhaps unfortunate) facts such as, "trans women aren't women" are we completely sure we'll get mass censorship right this time?

It might be worth remembering vast majority of us hold one or two "extreme views" that others find morally offensive.

Edit: Not that I should have to, but for those who are suspicious of my motives, I'm a left-wing, pro-LGBT, anti-racist type of guy.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#258

Post by theonlyklas »

radiator wrote: post #251
nyczomg wrote: post #210

From the article: 'The new policy will ban “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion,” the company said in a blog post.' Is this going to include videos that mention "white privilege" (which one could argue alleges superiority of white people) in which white people are asked to "check their privilege" in some way (which one could argue is an attempt to just…

No, because white privilege cannot be denied and exclusion against whites can never exist. But you should tread carefully, asking such questions.

Hey buddy, are you alleging that white people as a group are superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion? Slow down, there!

This is "rule" is a mess and its enforcement will be up to YouTube's moderators' whims. I don't look forward to it. Maybe delived will pick up more content creators.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#259

Post by HBKXNCUO »

Retra wrote: post #239
HBKXNCUO wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And the world is a more violent place because of it. Nevertheless, there is big difference between the way violence is advocated for between moderates and extremists in terms of severity, frequency, and justification. I didn't ask you who advocates for violence, I asked you why you thought the unrestricted public speech of extremists leads to peace.

Please be specific. Whose political speech do you believe is going to result in more real world violence, and what is the chain of events that you foresee?

I've already explained why I think restricting political speech results in increased real world violence. People are going to advocate for what they perceive as their interests, and if they can't do it peacefully, they're going to do it violently.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#260

Post by whenchamenia »

untog wrote: post #217
throwaway190605 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As someone who finds them both distasteful and hateful; yes, they are very similar. All sides need to reign in their extremists, or become defined by them.
Post reply on HN