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

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#661

Post by Gibbon1 » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 1:54 AM UTC

danans wrote: post #657

ng12 wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they didn't think of anyone as "white" in a meaningful way. They were primarily concerned with Pan-Germanicism.

> They were primarily concerned with Pan-Germanicism. If that was the case, then why did their policies include the murder of millions of German-speaking Jews, Gypsies, and people with disabilities. What was it about those people that made them not fit the category of "German"? The answer from clearly documented history is that the Nazis systematized the categorization of humans on their deeply flawed model of the Ar…

There is also historical conflicts between ethnic Germans and other ethnic groups. The Nazi's had a plan to exterminate most Slavs which includes Poles, Russians and Ukrainians after they won the war.

See Generalplan Ost.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#662

Post by lugg » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 1:58 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #230

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…

> "check their privilege" [...] (which one could argue is an attempt to justify exclusion)? If you can make the case, maybe. I mean, it sounds like a kind of insane case to make to me. Who's being excluded, and from what, merely by having their assumptions challenged in a discussion context? The groups actually being targetted are ones that tend to advocate for the status of the US as an inherently white nation. Sort…

> Who's being excluded, and from what, merely by having their assumptions challenged in a discussion context?

Good question, so why are we removing all this content?

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#663

Post by weaksauce » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 2:01 AM UTC

lugg wrote: post #658

weaksauce wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that it's not a clarification. from the original tou as far back as it went on archive.org: > You may not post, upload or transmit to the Site, or to the YouTube servers, any communications, text, graphics or other information or Materials that: (1) is unlawful, obscene, fraudulent, indecent or that defames, abuses, harasses, or threatens others, or is hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectio…

What is a clarification combined with a change in behavior? Redefinition.

> What is a clarification combined with a change in behavior?

It's moving from an ad hoc approach to a more definite, clarified criteria. Before some of these videos were being removed and some not but now there's more of a clear framework by which to judge offending content.

you can squabble over definitions of words all you like but they've always been against hateful content. they are just clarifying what is hateful.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#664

Post by remarkEon » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 2:01 AM UTC

fwip wrote: post #651

remarkEon wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“You must believe something to be true that you yourself know to be false” is a very “point deer say horse” kind of philosophy.

And there's only four lights, let's get the accusations of Orwellianism out of the way too. It's not a matter of "my side has facts and your side has opinions." It's that we disagree on what the facts are. You can find a lot of scientists from a few centuries ago confidently asserting that black people are subhuman. It doesn't magically make them not-racist because they believed it to be a true fact. They were wrong,…

Well, yes, there is a creepy element of Orwellianism to this. And the creepy Orwellianism comes in when you make comparisons like the one you just made - that I’m somehow wrong today because, centuries ago, a few scientists had some pet racial theories that turned out to be wrong. It’s a deliberate inversion of language meant to get people to submit.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#665

Post by manfredo » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 2:08 AM UTC

anbop wrote: post #376

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 agree with your comment but find it rambling, so I’ll concur with this: If free speech is a right worth protecting from the government, it’s worth protecting against equally powerful corporations.

> If free speech is a right worth protecting from the government, it’s worth protecting against equally powerful corporations.

But corporations' ability to decide what to host is guaranteed by freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech is not just freedom to say what you want it's also freedom from compelled speech. It's the freedom from the government telling you to make or host speech. Mandating that corporations host speech they don't want is not protecting freedom of speech, it is violating freedom of speech.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#666

Post by ajross » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 2:10 AM UTC

lugg wrote: post #662

ajross wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "check their privilege" [...] (which one could argue is an attempt to justify exclusion)? If you can make the case, maybe. I mean, it sounds like a kind of insane case to make to me. Who's being excluded, and from what, merely by having their assumptions challenged in a discussion context? The groups actually being targetted are ones that tend to advocate for the status of the US as an inherently white nation. Sort…

> Who's being excluded, and from what, merely by having their assumptions challenged in a discussion context? Good question, so why are we removing all this content?

The criteria in the linked article is content that incites "hatred, harassment, discrimination and violence".

Be real, here. What kind of snowflake logic is it that buckets "check your privilege" in with white nationalism?

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#667

Post by etchalon » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 2:16 AM UTC

core-questions wrote: post #389

dageshi wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a privately owned museum a "public square"? Or a sports stadium owned by a private company? Or a Cinema? Or a threatre? No, neither is youtube. It's a place the public visit not a piece of public infrastructure. Repeating "public square" over and over again does not make it so.

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?

In what possible respect is YouTube a natural monopoly, under any classic economic definition of the term?

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#668

Post by fwip » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 2:18 AM UTC

ralusek wrote: post #656

fwip wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woman: someone who, when you ask them, tells you they're a woman. If we want a simple inclusive definition, you can't beat that.

Not everyone wants an inclusive definition, some people want discriminatory definitions. And I don't mean discriminatory in a negative sense. If "four" means 4, it would be more inclusive if it also meant 5 and 6, but it loses some utility in its inclusivity. My problem isn't with your definition, it's with your implied assertion that we should "we want a simple inclusive definition," which is clearly not the case, a…

If you want a discriminatory definition, there are many bad ones to choose from. Take your pick!

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#669

Post by edmundsauto » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 2:41 AM UTC

bzbarsky wrote: post #437

edmundsauto wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One flaw in the analogy is that physical space is limited and difficult for a person to move around in. The digital space is effectively infinite, and switching is as easy as typing in a new url (compared to the physical challenge of moving to another state/region).

There are all sorts of flaws in the analogies here; that's why they're analogies, not identities. That said, I'm not quite sure I understand your point. A speaker in physical space can pretty easily take their speech elsewhere; most obviously to the nearest public street corner. So moving away from a private venue typically does not require anything nearly as drastic as "moving to another state/region". I'd really li…

The crux is that digital space is infinite -- anyone can create a space for their own speech. In the physical world, people own very little space, and free speech almost always needs to impose on someone else's property. I think because of that, any comparisons between online speech and IRL speech are inherently flawed and not very useful.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#670

Post by edmundsauto » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 2:43 AM UTC

dane-pgp wrote: post #456

edmundsauto wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One flaw in the analogy is that physical space is limited and difficult for a person to move around in. The digital space is effectively infinite, and switching is as easy as typing in a new url (compared to the physical challenge of moving to another state/region).

Telling a silenced victim that they can easily move to somewhere else in digital space is of little comfort when their complaint is that they are being denied access to a public audience who are habitually congregating in an existing location. The extent to which someone is entitled to an audience is of course more difficult to judge.

I disagree with your last sentence; I don't think anyone is entitled to an audience, so it's not a very difficult situation to judge. Free speech means you can shout in the wind all day long.