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

521–530 of 744 posts

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#521

Post by HBKXNCUO »

Retra wrote: post #489
HBKXNCUO wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you think they won't be able to do it peacefully?

If people are banned from the places where a substantial portion of the public political debate occurs, e.g. YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, their ability to participate in the public political debate is substantially reduced.

People advocate for their interests peacefully by participating in the public political debate.

If their ability to participate in the public political debate is substantially reduced, then their attempts to peacefully advocate for their interests are a waste of their time.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#522

Post by redog »

celdon25 wrote: post #368
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…

You can argue that the Second Amendment was not written with machine guns and rocket launchers in mind. I'm going to argue that the First Amendment was not written with the foresight that nearly all of the total bandwidth of communication between all people would be done using technologies that transcend physical property.

I like your thinking on this but Cannons existed...I think our failing maybe to fully understand their definitions of their times. That said, I don't think their definition of speech and property would be much different even if we're actualizing them in virtual realms. That would have been covered by "freedom of the press." You're literally just still publishing an opinion to someone's virtual press. There's no reason they must publish your writing either.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#523

Post by minikites »

Nadya wrote: post #497
fwip wrote: post #358

You're not pro-LGBT if you think trans women aren't women.

This is patently untrue in some domains that could be life-impacting, particularly in healthcare/medicine where differences in gender matters for treatment. If a trans-man is given medicine in doses as a man, and not a woman, they have a much higher risk of overdosing because of differences in how the body metabolizes drugs for each gender [0] [1]. It isn't transphobic to identify them as a woman and give them the pr…

>This is patently untrue in some domains that could be life-impacting, particularly in healthcare/medicine where differences in gender matters for treatment.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/144447-what-is-concern-troll...

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#524

Post by darkpuma »

kazinator wrote: post #284
Romanulus wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

One difference is that radical Islam basically just wants you to convert. White supremacy doesn't really present that option.

That's hardly a moral distinction at all.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#525

Post by fwip »

Nadya wrote: post #497
fwip wrote: post #358

You're not pro-LGBT if you think trans women aren't women.

This is patently untrue in some domains that could be life-impacting, particularly in healthcare/medicine where differences in gender matters for treatment. If a trans-man is given medicine in doses as a man, and not a woman, they have a much higher risk of overdosing because of differences in how the body metabolizes drugs for each gender [0] [1]. It isn't transphobic to identify them as a woman and give them the pr…

It's important for doctors to know your medical history, that's obviously true.

Do you know how trans people on HRT respond to Ambien, as your first link brings up? I sure don't. Depends on why the drug works differently.

If you're scared that you'll die because your doctor thinks you're cis, tell them you're trans.

That doesn't mean you have to tell your doctor "I'm really a man, despite being a trans woman, and it's definitely important for you to store an M in your records because you might suddenly forget that I'm trans and also I'm sure my reaction to medicine is the same as a cis man's."

Just be an adult and talk with your doctor honestly.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#526

Post by munk-a »

drewcoo wrote: post #470
ravenstine wrote: post #107

I'm starting to think that comment sections on news sites are a really bad idea. At first I thought NPR and the like were cowards for removing theirs. It's bad enough that NYT can be pretty biased on its own, but the comment sections are always full of low-tier thinking that just push whatever narrative is currently in the Overton window. What I find distressing is how people remark that a telecom and advertising gia…

What strange irony that you post about it on HN, effectively a detached comment section for a news site. Was that intended? Regardless, I think you're making the tacit assertion that comments for the news belong somewhere. How? How should its censorship work? Would that take care of the problem?

There definitely is an effect to white-labeling and brand confidence. When comments are hosted by an organization - regardless of the specific legal implications and understandings - people assume the brand has some ownership of the contents of those comments... No matter how big of a font is used to say "The opinions expressed below belong solely to their owners and do not reflect the views of ."

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#527

Post by core-questions »

dageshi wrote: post #412
core-questions wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube runs on the back of publicly-funded infrastructure and, as a natural monopoly in the space, it has a position of privilege that needs to be regulated. We need an Internet Bill of Rights to ensure free speech on any platform of this scale. Yes, that means speech you don't like; may I suggest not watching it?

I see, would that include allowing pornography on youtube, or would that not be allowed, if not why not?

Interesting question. Of course, being of sound mind, I don't consider pornography to be the same thing as political speech, and don't really seem to have any issue drawing a line between the two. It should certainly be just as easy to NOT see either thing, if you don't want to; but presently it's much harder to get a platform for the speech than it is for the porn. Funny, that.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#528

Post by skinnymuch »

la_barba wrote: post #184
chronial wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Err, how do you know that the algorithm does this? Youtube optimizes for watch time. Most people don't want to spend their afternoons having their views challenged. Any algorithm that properly optimizes for watch time of the masses will learn to validate views.

Right, we can all speculate. I'm asking for some objective proof, if any such is available. We can only propose a solution if we first demonstrate that the problem is real.

I agree with the other commentator. You seem to be posting pointless confrontational messages that you know there’s no complete proof for, but if you were discussing in good faith, you wouldn’t have posted your messages questioning Google’s YouTube algo.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#529

Post by dgjrhgi »

root_axis wrote: post #72
warp_factor wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the issue is not me or you but with the masses of people that don't know // don't care where they give their attention. And that's the huge majority unfortunately.

That's their choice. If they don't like YouTube they should boycott YouTube, not leverage the government to force YouTube to host arbitrary videos for free.

How do you make small kids boycott YouTube before they gets addicted to it? If so then we can also have people simply boycott drugs and not make it illegal.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#530

Post by redog »

ameister14 wrote: post #463
redog wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I'd agree with you if Youtube was classified as a publisher, with all the restrictions that entails. They are not.

What makes them not a "publisher"?

A publisher is a person or company that prepares and issues books, journals, music, or other works.

Their site literally prepares recordings and streams for issue over the public(?) network.

Post reply on HN