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

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#591

Post by HBKXNCUO » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:37 PM UTC

dageshi wrote: post #581

HBKXNCUO wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Then I think there's a core distinction between hosting content and as you put it "finding new content for them". Yes of course those two things are different, but YouTube does both of them and both of them are necessary for meaningful participation in the public political debate. >but recommendations/search fall under curation and curation is very much back in the realm of TV/newspapers where the proprieter exercis…

I think google will largely remove content at the edges that it deems to be offensive or dangerous both to its audience and to its reputation, much the same way reddit went through a recent cleanup of similar "communities". So long as they are transparent with what they're removing, I really don't have a problem. I distinctly believe that a right to free speech is not a right to have an audience provided to you. If y…

>I think google will largely remove content at the edges that it deems to be offensive or dangerous

And do you think they remove that content without any regard for their own political leanings? That their opinion of what is "offensive" or "dangerous" is not influenced by their own political ideology?

>I distinctly believe that a right to free speech is not a right to have an audience provided to you.

What is the point in free speech, in your opinion? Why is it something we should care to guarantee?

>If you want to build such a community on your own site then by all means, that's your prerogative and that's the freedom the web gives you.

A) The actual fact of the matter is that the majority of the public political debate which normal people engage in on the internet occurs on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, and perhaps a couple of other giant corporate-owned web properties that all have essentially identical policies. Telling people to go elsewhere is essentially telling them to go piss up a rope. It's not a real alternative.

B) The daily stormer would like a word with you.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#592

Post by repolfx » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:41 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #460

indigochill wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would the rules look for establishing the long-term governance of a wikiocracy? Specifically, my impression is that it works because it has good people. If the good people left and lesser people replaced them, could it still be made to work? One of the things I'll give the US is as crappy as the leaders get, the system still remains cohesive rather than suffering a bloody coup every four years.

Well lots of other countries get on OK with parliamentary democracies, I don't think the US system is uniquely reliable in this regard. You'd have to look at the ups and downs of Wiki edit wars, figure out what standards would apply for citations of empirical data as valid policymaking inputs and so forth. I don't think Wikipedia has especially 'good people', just experienced ones and a general agreement to operate w…

Politicians have been talking up what they call evidence-based policymaking for years. That'd be the equivalent of citing empirical data for policymaking inputs. Unfortunately it's not that easy, as the endless edit wars and fights over what constitutes a reliable citation shows.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#593

Post by smsm42 » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #340

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]

> usually the latter gets all passes in the world for calling for actual physical violence, and the former gets banned

And I switched the "latter" and "former" but it's too late to edit... Duh.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#594

Post by 0815test » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

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…

The elephant in the room is that "passing" is often little more than wishful thinking, and people are starting to understand this. Ultimately, a shared focus on full transparency about being 'trans' or 'cis' is quite helpful at de-escalating hostile attitudes and discrimination about the matter - one could admit of rare exceptions, but by and large, anyone who feels like they must hide themselves for "safety reasons" is likely better off leaving the unsafe environment entirely!

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#595

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:43 PM UTC

indigochill wrote: post #397

anigbrowl wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I abandoned that idea a while ago. I think we could move toward a wikiocracy , which would have problems of its own but for which we have a working prototype that is reasonably transparent, responsive, and accessible and delivered a significant public good in a relatively short time frame.

How would the rules look for establishing the long-term governance of a wikiocracy? Specifically, my impression is that it works because it has good people. If the good people left and lesser people replaced them, could it still be made to work? One of the things I'll give the US is as crappy as the leaders get, the system still remains cohesive rather than suffering a bloody coup every four years.

> One of the things I'll give the US is as crappy as the leaders get, the system still remains cohesive rather than suffering a bloody coup every four years.

Pretty much every system in the world has that feature. Heck, that's a standard of quality so low North Korea’s government passes with honors.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#596

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

anoncake wrote: post #571

toomuchtodo wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#597

Post by repolfx » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:45 PM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #273

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.

Here is a crazy wild-assed concept: letters to the editor, published in the next issue.

Doesn't work if the newspaper publishes total nonsense and smarter or better informed comments point that out, which is 50% of the value of comments.

I'm pretty sure a big part of the reason the Guardian stopped opening comments on most stories was the cost of 'moderation', except the reason their moderation costs were so high is that their moderators would routinely plough through comments by hand to remove people pointing out mistakes or absurd statements by the journalists, and as the Guardian changed over the years the articles became ever more extremist, so that started to be most comments. That is, they defined making their own staff look bad as abuse (regardless of whether it was written in vitriolic style).

Even now if you go read one of the few open threads they have, you can find commenters pointing out logical or factual problems with the column.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#598

Post by repolfx » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:50 PM UTC

yoodenvranx wrote: post #138

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…

> I'm starting to think that comment sections on news sites are a really bad idea I have no idea how it is in other countries but in Germany the comment sections in every single newspaper is _horrible_, especially when it is articles about refugees, climate change and similar topics.

I suspect you're defining horrible comments as, "comments expressing views I don't like and wish didn't exist". Germany has particularly extreme and unusual policies regarding migrants/asylum seekers/refugees, climate change and a few other such things. Is it any surprise that extreme views in one direction trigger extreme views in the other?

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#599

Post by root_axis » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:53 PM UTC

HBKXNCUO wrote: post #587

root_axis wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you suggesting that their impressionable young minds are uninfluenced by what they see on YouTube? They will be influenced by hundreds of factors, YouTube perhaps among them, but YouTube is not of any particular our outsized importance. > OK, but there is still a whole lot of political content on there. And? Political content exists on the bathroom stall as well, that doesn't mean it's important. > The second t…

>They will be influenced by hundreds of factors, YouTube perhaps among them, but YouTube is not of any particular our outsized importance. Outsized in comparison with what? >And? Political content exists on the bathroom stall as well, that doesn't mean it's important. Political videos on youtube have billions of views. >PewDiePie is not a political channel and is completely irrelevant with regard to politics. Like I…

> Outsized in comparison with what?

With any of the other hundreds of platforms that cater to political discussion.

> Political videos on youtube have billions of views

So what? I'm not suggesting that YouTube isn't popular, I'm saying that just because its popular doesn't mean YouTube should be prohibited from curating it's own platform.

> Do you think his politically oriented content has no impact on the politics of his ~100 million audience?

The impact is negligible. Nobody cares what PewDiePie thinks when they enter the voting booth. And even if they did, it's YouTube's prerogative to kick off whoever they want, and if they decided to kick off PewDiePie... who cares? YouTube drama isn't important.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#600

Post by Krasnol » Wed, Jun 05, 2019, 9:56 PM UTC

HBKXNCUO wrote: post #570

Krasnol wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 the…

>Is this supposed to threaten me? I'm not sure what that would mean in this context. >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 point I'm making is that it's probably not a good idea to allow certain private spaces to suppress free speech. >You can't display swastikas in a Bundesl…

> The point I'm making is that it's probably not a good idea to allow certain private spaces to suppress free speech.

And it's a good idea to force private spaces to allow everything on their spaces or declaring it public spaces even if they are not? What about the implications? If your private space becomes a public space, does it make you some kind of government?

> As I understand, you can't display them anywhere in your country

Sure you can. You can have as many swastikas in your living room as you wish. You can also have them on public spaces or on TV if they are part of some artistic performance for example. But that's derailing the actual argument. The amount of people present on a private property do not take away the owners rights.

> What matters is whether people feel as though they have lost their ability to peacefully and meaningfully advocate for their interests.

Nobody takes that away from them. They can still express themselves elsewhere. Those places exist.

> I'm not interested in debating your strange and highly restricted meaning of the word.

And I guess this is the core of the problem. You just chose to blindly ignore that in favor of the use of the phrase to advertise your point which is based upon a misunderstanding of private vs. public.

> The people you mean to refer to are not my concern.

But they should. Especially if you want concern for your own position. This is how a healthy society works.