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

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#701

Post by danans » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 6:51 AM UTC

ng12 wrote: post #676

danans wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> If that was the case, then why did their policies include the murder of millions of German-speaking Jews, Gypsies, and people with disabilities. Because Jews and Gypsies weren't considered ethnically German. Re: disabilities, it's a mix of rabid utilitarianism (they were called "useless eaters") and a belief that disabilities stemmed from corrupted bloodlines (hence the term mongoloid -- it was a popular theory tha…

> Because Jews and Gypsies weren't considered ethnically German.

What defined German ethnicity?

Clearly it wasn't the ability to speak the language, or being descended from many generations of ancestors living in Germany, otherwise the Jews and Roma both would have been considered German.

Clearly there was something else attributed to them that didn't fit the definition of "German". It was that they weren't considered racially German. Race is literally what the Nuremberg Laws were about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany

Given the preponderance of clear historical evidence for the Third Reich's racially based rationale for its actions, one wonders why would anyone try to water it down to the more innocuous seeming rationale of "German ethnicity".

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#702

Post by SmaryLarry » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 7:10 AM UTC

I think the analogies in this case are often extremely accurate ways that people have been getting the point across. I'll add one of my own in just a second. The problem here is not censorship at all, the problem is monopoly. Take the recent Disney acquisition of Fox for example in which in the acquisition they were forced to sell off regional fox sports stations in their purchase. The problem was they were about to have a monopoly on sports TV content. Now look at YouTube which has a near monopoly on ALL user uploaded video content. The problem is an entire industry - user uploaded video - is consolidated. Peoples incomes, their very livelihoods depend on YouTube. YouTube decides whether individuals succeed or fail with user uploaded video with their recommendations, suggestions, and trending algorithms. Success of individuals depends as much on YouTubes opinion of them as much as on their own abilities to produce content. YouTube itself people wouldn't call a small company, but it doesn't have that many employees... unless you start to count people who upload videos as employees, then they have millions of them, most which work for free until they can make it big. YouTube is the largest employer in the world and their monopoloy on content means their employees have no where else to go when they get banned. This doesn't even scratch the fact that typically we have seen bans done across multiple platforms - Facebook, Twitter, iTunes, Paypal, Patreon. They all ban users simultaneously to silence people and cut their income off. Imagine if the water company decided your speech meant you were too evil to be worth supplying. Well Money is not quiet as necessary as water but it comes close for many people who are working or trying to make it big at YouTube. Hey you can buy water from some other company, they might say, right? Even other large companies are depending on their YouTube videos to succeed and they employ hundreds more people who rely on YouTube. It is clear that their monopoly on user generated video content is what is the true problem. How can their power be weakened is the better question than what should they be censoring. Splitting YouTube from Google and the rest of Alphabet is a start. They likely saw this coming a long time ago and preemptively worked towards this goal with their recent restructuring. How else do you break up a monopoly that was made by user choice? Well in the Disney example they simply split the channels. Force YouTube to split into two or more companies. Whether that means breaking subscribers right now the middle and making two companies or dividing it up into multiple categorical companies then do it. I don't know the best way but I do know their dominance and user lack of choice by virtue of the monopoly is the true enemy, not censorship.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#703

Post by belorn » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 7:24 AM UTC

Faark wrote: post #555

bzbarsky wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What it means it allows people to visit without discrimination on basis of legally protected classes like gender and race No, the "public square" designation specifically allows people to do things like come to the mall and set up political protests and whatnot. It's not about _access_ to the mall; it's about speech protections. Is uploading videos more akin to setting up a store at the mall, or more akin to standi…

Not just between demonetization (totally fine with me) and removal (don't really like it). Promotion is also a tricky one, since those algorithms are fully under Google's control and thus responsibility for its results. But do you still participate in this "public square" if only your followers will find your message? But Google will have to decide what videos are shown anyhow...

For a mall comparison, that would be like them only allowing the demonstration to exist in the basement behind the door that says "beware of the leopard".

If a mall did that they likely be accused of discrimination. The demonstrators don't demand to be promoted, but simply be treated as anyone else.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#704

Post by siruncledrew » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 7:50 AM UTC

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…

1. Comments sections on prominent, generalized websites (non-niche sites) are oftentimes not even worth reading. Buried beneath idiotic nonsense, spam/scams, edgelords, trolls, bots, and narcissists are the actual few insightful comments that are refreshing bits of value. It's like panning for gold in a river.

--

2. There's not going to be a fair judge of what counts as "censorable content" when two opposite sites of the debate are each arguing in favor of their side. It's like why referees exist in sports. Of course Team A will say "No way! That wasn't a foul, I didn't touch them!", while Team B says "It was definitely a foul, I got hit!". To anyone who's heard "boos or cheers" from the crowd at a sports game, it's not a shocker the response centers around which calls benefits their team.

--

3. With regards to the "freedom of speech" rights and personal liberties - how much of a shit does a monopoly-level, multi-national corporation give about strictly adhering to government-defined "rights"? What is the business cost of vehemently adhering to potentially-gray-area covenants vs. saying "Yeahh.. fuck that shit it's too much effort". Finagling laws to suit business needs is what huge companies pay teams of people to do already.

--

4. YouTube is like a factory farm. The more users are bunched into YouTube, the more money Google makes from advertising. It's all a numbers game. Google has no incentive to change the setup of the farm, so to speak, when what they have has been paying off to keep the service free and hold market share. Unless someone has a particularly large audience, the main solution to complaints from random, non-paying users is: "Deal with it".

--

5. Ban specific items that are violent, devious, or dangerous? Sure. Banning "DIY drinking bleach cures autism" is not the same as banning something more nuanced like "trailer trash ride dirt bikes on the interstate" on the grounds a specific subgroup has a problem. As customer service will show you, people will always find something to complain about. If Google came out with, "We will ban whatever we feel like based on what disagrees with our superior, self-selected ideology", that would be a very different story. That's not much better than a dictatorship banning anything that disagrees with the State.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#705

Post by CodiePetersen » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 8:00 AM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #423

CodiePetersen wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although any hateful speech is terrible of course, I think censoring like this is a bad idea. Like other conversations about freedom of speech on HN it will eventually lead to talking about banning non hateful but extreme ideas like flat earth and anti vax. While ridiculous as they are, I think it would be equally ridiculous to ban them. What's the line you draw when you decide what gets to be promoted. Maybe certain…

I'm also okay banning anti-vax ideas, in defense of the community in general, and in defense in specific of those vulnerable few who can't be immunized and rely on herd immunity. Foregoing vaccination imposes an as-yet-unaccounted externality on the community; you put everyone at risk by not vaccinating yourself or your kids, and there's no way for the vulnerable (those relying on herd immunity) to know who around th…

>I'm also okay banning anti-vax ideas

You are OK with banning the idea? It's one thing to make it criminal to endanger your children's health. It's another to put a blanket ban on the speech because you don't like the idea or you think it's "dangerous". The point of free speech is that you don't get individuals deciding who gets to be in charge of what is morally right to say. Society as a whole decides through civil discourse and rigorous debate. But you can't have that if you go around suppressing the other side.

Start banning free speech and you start banning democracy. There is really no two ways about it. This is not a debate about the physical choices people make. Those are either made illegal or not. This is a debate about whether or not people have the right to talk about their ideas. But you are here trying to use a ridiculously nearly undefendable action to spin the argument of some actions are bad or dangerous. Yes they are, but the speech and discussion can only enlighten the public so long as reasonable minds have a chance to speak up against unreasonable ideas. Humanity's resilience comes from the fact that we get to try so many ideas at once out. But if you let a single entity decide what ideas will be allowed you introduce a dangerous weak point into society. The inability to speak your mind only ever brings suffering violence and death. Yes free speech has its problems but it's the best we got.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#706

Post by esailija » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 8:01 AM UTC

iamnothere wrote: post #672

nybble41 wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If free speech is a right worth protecting from the government, it’s worth protecting against equally powerful corporations. The right of free speech is that you can say what you want without violent repercussions, such as fines, prison time, or capital punishment. Corporations and individuals already aren't allowed to do any of that, so no additional protection is needed. Governments are singled out specifically b…

> The right of free speech is that you can say what you want without violent repercussions, such as fines, prison time, or capital punishment. This is merely one view of free speech; many people actively disagree with this view. You can't take a contested human-defined concept like freedom of speech and say "this only means X, case closed." I mean, you can, but nobody has to agree with you.

The view that free speech should protect you even from the most trivial consequences like being banned from a private platform is completely unreasonable and ridiculous. Doesn't matter that there are people that hold that opinion, that's a weak argument for it.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#707

Post by belorn » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 8:26 AM UTC

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. US culture has a rather long history of censoring sexual content, but other nations has other areas which they prefer to censor. Historically in Sweden, we had about as restrictive ban on violence as the US had on sex. As an example, we had sexual education for teens on national broadcast and allowed movies which got banned in the states. On the other hand we banned Darkwing Duck as it "taught children how to use physical violence against each other".

Following more modern censoring in Sweden, should Youtube allow videos that include tobacco, alcohol and gambling? if not why not?

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#708

Post by belorn » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 8:41 AM UTC

esailija wrote: post #706

iamnothere wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The right of free speech is that you can say what you want without violent repercussions, such as fines, prison time, or capital punishment. This is merely one view of free speech; many people actively disagree with this view. You can't take a contested human-defined concept like freedom of speech and say "this only means X, case closed." I mean, you can, but nobody has to agree with you.

The view that free speech should protect you even from the most trivial consequences like being banned from a private platform is completely unreasonable and ridiculous. Doesn't matter that there are people that hold that opinion, that's a weak argument for it.

A lot of people combine free speech with anti-discrimination. Speech get attached to identity and from there a ban becomes discrimination.

Three people walk into a Hotel. A priest, a advocate for the left, and a advocate for the right. Each three talks about the groups they define as "us", and how bad those "others" are. Can the hotel owner deny hosting and ban one of them based on the identity and vies of the person?

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#709

Post by esailija » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 8:49 AM UTC

skrowl wrote: post #145

adwi wrote: post #133

Even as lifelong card-carrying ACLU supporter I don’t see why they don’t just take down anything they damn well please. They’re a private company and are entitled to have a curatorial viewpoint—and for my particular beliefs culling white suprematists and borderline pedophilic content is a Good Thing. You’re entitled to say whatever you want in this country, but I’m not obligated to broadcast it for you.

I think the problem is that they censor views they don't like that aren't breaking any laws, which makes them a PUBLISHER but then they claim they need protections only offered to OPEN PLATFORMS. They've often claimed in court to be an open / neutral platform, because that comes with legal protections against what your users post - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-... Publishers (like Forbe…

I cannot find any mention of youtube in the link, it seems to be about facebook.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#710

Post by belorn » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 9:05 AM UTC

lugg wrote: post #689

leereeves wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren't protected classes when the political pressure would have been against them. "Protected class" basically means politically favored group, and as GP points out, that changes.

Yes it does, but to attempt and claim that White Supremacy could ever be considered a "protected class" is absurd. This isn't my bias speaking here, this is a contextual reality, the world has constraints and there isn't any iteration of what we have that would allow this reality to evolve. The only wiggle room you have here is on free speech grounds but we have already figured out, that this does not apply here.

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights is already include ideological and philosophical views as protected.

To quote the EU court: "the Court held that "A fair balance of personal rights made it necessary to accept that others’ thought should be subject to a minimum of influence, otherwise the result would be a "strange society of silent animals that [would] think but ... not express themselves, that [would] talk but ... not communicate, and that [would] exist but ... not coexist."

It basically comes down to the idea that people have a freedom to express a religion or belief, and its the later word which has in the courts view a much larger scope as it also covers ideology and philosophy. A belief can be anything from the view that men are more violent than women, or that immigrants are more violent than natively born.

The US has generally a much narrower definition for protected classes, but there are three states that consider political affiliation as protected class. California, D.C., and New York, where the later protect against discrimination because of political activity. (https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-aff...)

All that said, protected class is unlikely going to work on a youtube video. If youtube wanted to ban all non-white non-christian people they likely could do so, as people in videos are not employees of youtube and thus are not covered by the anti-discrimination protection.