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

571–580 of 744 posts

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#571

Post by anoncake »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #320
v7p1Qbt1im wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tolerance of intolerance may lead to the loss of tolerance. The NSDAP propaganda machine, for example specifically targeted this line of thinking.

That's an argument for active participation in the political process and an engaged electorate, not censorship. To default to the support of censorship of what you disagree with is simply laziness (and antithetical to the fundamental principals of a democratic society). If your government and society can't withstand the free expression and discussion of unpleasant ideas, you have problems with the current implementat…

I prefer a democratic society that suppresses its enemies while trying to solve the root cause to one that gets destroyed and definitely won't solve the root cause.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#572

Post by anoncake »

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.

> And the world is a more violent place because of it.

I don't think the world becomes more violent because people defend themselves and others. And if it does, it's still worth it compared to surrendering to every would-be tyrant without a fight.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#573

Post by nyc_data_geek »

Madmallard wrote: post #39
nyc_data_geek wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech is not entitlement to an audience. People can always make a sign and shout in the park.

You don't really have a chance at an audience without using the platform..

No one said you are entitled to one.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#574

Post by anigbrowl »

indigochill wrote: post #477
anigbrowl wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't an ideological or semantic one but the fact that most news operations don't have the resources or motivation to moderate online commentary effectively, and the cost of poisoning conversation is trivially low.

Most new organizations are also general-purpose, meaning the organization will cover everything from politics to sports to tech to finance to gossip. My assertion is that trying to be all things to all people leads us into impossible-to-moderate scenarios even before you look at the motivation/resources available with which to perform said moderation.

I'm proposing approaching the US code and other bodies of law (and associated jurisprudence) as a Wiki and seeing what happens. I propose that this could be an improvement over the whole representative democracy approach.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#575

Post by Retra »

HBKXNCUO wrote: post #560
Retra wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 le…

>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. Could you word this another way? I do not understand what you're saying. >then you message is inherently violent Can you please be specific and give an example…

You are supposing that there exists a peaceful YouTuber who's (a) dedicated to the peaceful advocacy of their interests, (b) banned from YouTube, and (c) unwilling to advocate their interests on any other platform except through the use of violence. (a) and (c) are contradictory. Supposedly you are justifying this by assuming YouTube is the only platform from which one can peacefully advocate their interests. It is not. You could even return to YouTube with moderated content.

I do not find this hypothetical YouTuber to be a peaceful advocate for anybody's interests.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#576

Post by vkou »

luckylion wrote: post #552
vkou wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not white supremacist (since Poles, Russians, European Jews etc are white as well). Half the bloody point of white supremacy is that the supremacist is the one who chooses who is white enough to be in the in-group, and who is not. The definition of white changes, based on who the supremacist wants to kill, displace, or enslave.

> Half the bloody point of white supremacy is that the supremacist is the one who chooses who is white enough to be in the in-group, and who is not. Meh, removing any value from descriptive terms doesn't help. > The definition of white changes, based on who the supremacist wants to kill, displace, or enslave. Or it's just not white supremacy, which it never was with the Nazis.

And racism makes no sense, because we are all members of the human race. Therefore, I posit that American Slavery was not based on racism. Aren't pointless semantic games fun?

Nazism was absolutely white supremacy. That it excluded ethnic groups that you consider to be white, or stack-ranked various white ethnic groups has nothing to do whether or not it was about white supremacy. Please, pray tell, what exact role were non-whites expected to play in Hitler's Brave New World?

You are using an incredibly narrow definition of the term, to try to make.. What point, exactly?

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#577

Post by anoncake »

HBKXNCUO wrote: post #122
dogecoinbase wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless otherwise regulated, yes, of course. No one should be forced to conduct business with another party.

Do you have some good reason why we should not change the regulations so that they are "otherwise regulated"? No one is claiming they are currently breaking the law by refusing to conduct business with e.g. gab or the daily stormer or whoever else.

"This should not be illegal because it isn't." is a surprisingly common argument.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#578

Post by HBKXNCUO »

root_axis wrote: post #561
HBKXNCUO wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly do you mean by "not that important"? Is it your position that if, say, YouTube took down all content that was in favor of Democrats, and pushed content that was in favor of Republicans to the front page, and put it all over recommendations, that there would be no impact to elections?

The impact would be negligible, not only because the YouTube demographic skews very young (i.e. people who don't vote), but also because most of the content on YouTube is not political content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-subscribed_YouTub... None of the top channels are political. Do you have any evidence to support the idea that YouTube is so important to politics that the government should step in t…

>The impact would be negligible, not only because the YouTube demographic skews very young (i.e. people who don't vote)

Young people eventually grow up to vote. Are you suggesting that their impressionable young minds are uninfluenced by what they see on YouTube?

>but also because most of the content on YouTube is not political content.

OK, but there is still a whole lot of political content on there.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-subscribed_YouTub....

The second to most subscribed channel is not political as its main function, but there is most definitely political content on there.

>Do you have any evidence to support the idea that YouTube is so important to politics that the government should step in to regulate it?

Do you have any evidence to support the idea that people speaking on soapboxes are so important to politics that the government should step in to prevent municipalities from regulating their messages? There are billions of views of political videos on YouTube. It's a place where many millions go to consume political content. People get angry when political content they agree with gets censored.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#579

Post by QualityReboot »

fwip wrote: post #534
QualityReboot wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

I made my attempt to explain it upthread for cis folks who haven't got it sorted yet.

I'm surprised that my understanding is already out of date or was wrong in the first place. Maybe 5 years ago or so, the rule I learned was that cis people should make no distinction between trans or cis, so as not to separate people into groups. I figured that extended to everything, which is why we don't make a distinction between cis and trans in things like sports or bathrooms, because there should be no distinction to make.

It's all a bit confusing. I'd like to get it right, but there's a lot of change happening and it's hard to keep up.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#580

Post by OCASM »

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…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN