YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#531

Post by hackerbrother » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

themagician wrote: post #183

vowelless wrote: post #91

Good. Online radicalism is a thing. To all the people here who are decrying this as “censorship”, remember that during the early 2010s, Islamic radicals were getting radicalized on YouTube by pretty benign sermons (Ex: Awlaki and his “tour of Paradise” lectures that inspired Boston 2013, fort hood and a bunch of other international attacks). YouTube removed all that out and I think Muslims getting radicalized on YouT…

Those looking to be radicalized will look at this as an example of the conspiracy. Look at QAnon. Or look at things like Conservapedia: https://www.conservapedia.com/Paul_Manafort Go ahead and read that article on Paul Manafort. That's just one, mundane article—you could pick any. Understand that, true or false, it doesn't matter anymore—this is a narrative and a set of facts that around 100 million people in the Uni…

I don't know about your conclusion. There's a lot of people out there arguing that deplatforming works. I think it was considered to be effective in reducing Alex Jones' influence.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#532

Post by Krasnol » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 8:15 PM UTC

HBKXNCUO wrote: post #143

Krasnol wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No wonder people are throwing around "censorship" when they don't understand the difference between a public space and a private homepage....

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…

> 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.

Is this supposed to threaten me?

I don't know where you're from but here in Germany there is a difference between public spaces and private spaces. You can suppress free speech in private spaces. You don't even have to allow access to private spaces while it's the other way around in public spaces. There are laws for that.

The amount of people does not matter. You can't display swastikas in a Bundesliga stadium just because there are plenty people there. The owner would throw you out and probably even report you to the police.

Censorship is something the state forces upon you. It restricts things in public spaces. There is no place left you can go in a state with censorship present to challenge that.

Misusing "censorship" for moderation of private spaces plays down the word. It wears it out and it ridicules people who really suffer under true censorship.

And please...spare me the drama. I grew up in a state with true censorship and I've been online long enough to see this ridiculous whining as what it is...

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#533

Post by nailer » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 8:16 PM UTC

darkpuma wrote: post #511

biogewuerz wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "white people" concept is increasingly gaining popularity in Europe and especially among the European far-right though. This is due to the massive influx of non-European migrants over the past decades, which makes the racial divisions much more visible.

Huh, the overwhelming majority that I've personally witnessed is Anglo/British shitting on Polish immigrants.

Likewise - there's either concern about competition from eastern Europeans (who are as pale as Brits are), or the increase in Islamic terrorism (which is obviously a religious concern rather than a racial one).

Both are not advocating any kind of racial supremacy but rather self-interest, and - like them or not - relatively common as judged by recent election results.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#534

Post by fwip » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 8:17 PM UTC

QualityReboot wrote: post #487

fwip wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because trans women are the people being discussed, duh. If you were saying "tall women aren't women," the appropriate rejoinder is "yes, tall women are women," not the useless tautology "women are women."

My understanding is that most trans women don't want to be identified as such, and that "passing" is a really big deal. "Tall" is an acceptable descriptor for a person, obvious to all and not usually very sensitive. "Trans" isn't like this and remarking on "how trans" someone is carries a very different meaning than remarking on "how tall" someone is. Maybe it's still acceptable or useful to accept "trans women" as t…

I'm a trans woman, so I'm gonna go ahead and be gentle when I say that my understanding does not match yours.

Some trans women are as you describe, preoccupied with passing and going stealth, especially for safety reasons. Many aren't.

You can speculate on if the term is gonna go away, but right now it's the best adjective to describe trans people. It's not offensive or a slur, it's literally the community's chosen language.

And you're right, sometimes it's better to be nice and gentle to people who are wrong. I won't be mad if you pop back upthread and correct them gently. We can do one of those good cop bad cop things.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#535

Post by dageshi » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 8:17 PM UTC

HBKXNCUO wrote: post #474

dageshi wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then using your analagy I could see a compromise here, youtube could host whatever content as you desire but it wouldn't necessarily surface it in seach or anywhere else on the site. It would only be accessible by direct link. That would satisfy the common carrier aspect as you could simply email the links out to your existing audience. Because to use your analagy, to send out your pamphlets you must know your audien…

>That would satisfy the common carrier aspect as you could simply email the links out to your existing audience. Yes, but the analogy with traditional delivery services breaks down because people don't ask the delivery service to find new content for them. Preferring certain people's videos in search and recommendations based upon their political content is a deliberate reduction in the ability of the penalized peopl…

Then I think there's a core distinction between hosting content and as you put it "finding new content for them". Hosting may fall under some common carrier scenario, but recommendations/search fall under curation and curation is very much back in the realm of TV/newspapers where the proprieter exercises control. I think that does entitle them to shape the political conversation, although I could see some argument for a great deal of transparency in exactly what they're doing in that regard.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#536

Post by eeeuo » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 8:17 PM UTC

vpmpaul wrote: post #445

AndrewStephens wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was shocked when news sites started publishing comments as a matter of course. They worked so hard to research and create a 2000 word article that accurately reflects the world (in accordance to their editorial guidelines) using their good name - and then let fReEtHiNkErChAd and 2020BloodInTheStreets chime in at the end. It would be OK if they strictly moderated the comments, but few sites seem to do that.

My experience is the exact opposite. I often skim the article and find that commenters are better informed than the author and provide more relevant information.

Unlike news companies, commentators do not gain monetary value from sensationalism.

Authors of articles are generally more informed than their pieces suggest, but their editors step in and make the story "pop" for readers in order to generate clicks. This often involves removing nuance. I believe that most major news organizations make an honest effort to be factual, but there's a lot of room within the facts to be misleading.

A commentator that is an expert in the field is not constrained by an editor, and can in a few paragraphs give a more realistic and accurate assessment of the phenomenon.

When I read articles about things in which I'm not knowledgeable, I don't trust the conclusions until I see high quality comments(or tweets) that confirm the thesis of the article.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#537

Post by bradstewart » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 8:18 PM UTC

vpmpaul wrote: post #445

AndrewStephens wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was shocked when news sites started publishing comments as a matter of course. They worked so hard to research and create a 2000 word article that accurately reflects the world (in accordance to their editorial guidelines) using their good name - and then let fReEtHiNkErChAd and 2020BloodInTheStreets chime in at the end. It would be OK if they strictly moderated the comments, but few sites seem to do that.

My experience is the exact opposite. I often skim the article and find that commenters are better informed than the author and provide more relevant information.

How do you know the commenters are better informed?

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#538

Post by root_axis » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 8:19 PM UTC

HBKXNCUO wrote: post #515

root_axis wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube is the most popular video website on the internet. This makes it a fundamental human right. I am being sarcastic.

YouTube is the most popular website on the internet for regular (i.e. non-rich) people to participate in the public political debate by posting/watching videos. This means banning regular people from it substantially reduces their ability to meaningfully participate in the public political debate. When people can't peacefully advocate for their interests, they do so violently. We don't want real world violence, so it…

YouTube is just not that important. It's not some type of important political fixture, it's pretty universally regarded as a cesspool with regard to political discussion and most of the content is non-political anyway.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#539

Post by Retra » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 8:19 PM UTC

HBKXNCUO wrote: post #521

Retra wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

You are making an assumption which contradicts your conclusion. If we are assuming that (1) YouTube is effectively the public square and that (2) people will advocate for their interest peacefully, then you cannot conclude that people will forego self-moderation of content deemed extreme and immediately turn to violence.

If your YouTube video gets taken down, you can re-upload something that is better reasoned and less prone to inciting violence. If you can't do this, then you message is inherently violent, and there was never any peaceful outcome in the first place.

Either way, I'd still rather have extremists arming themselves than spending their lives convincing others to take up violence on their behalf.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#540

Post by root_axis » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 8:21 PM UTC

dgjrhgi wrote: post #529

root_axis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The same way we prevent small kids from visiting pornhub: through responsible supervision.