Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 168 posts

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#111

Post by corodra »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #106
corodra wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I somewhat do agree with the ad engine... but it's a crappy one. I'm a guy in my 30s. Nothing in my view history ever says, "Hey, this guy is progressive enough to wear makeup." At that, I watch english, polish, and french videos. Ads I get, Spanish. I dont know spanish. I'd accept general language learning ads. But tostitos and I think one was health or house insurance... in spanish. It's like the ad bot is some red…

Do you have the “tune ads based on view history” (or whatever it’s called) turned off by chance?

Already checked that a while ago when I complained to a friend who asked the same. I still get plenty of ads for stuff like CNC machines, mechanic classes and other stuff. I'm okay with some random stuff that feels like the marketer was going out on a limb. But some are just... selling paintings to Stevie Wonder.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#112

Post by neutronicus »

corodra wrote: post #89
corporateslave5 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah these aren’t content recommendation engines, they’re ad engines

I somewhat do agree with the ad engine... but it's a crappy one. I'm a guy in my 30s. Nothing in my view history ever says, "Hey, this guy is progressive enough to wear makeup." At that, I watch english, polish, and french videos. Ads I get, Spanish. I dont know spanish. I'd accept general language learning ads. But tostitos and I think one was health or house insurance... in spanish. It's like the ad bot is some red…

Book a honeymoon, constantly Google administrative marriage questions ... still get ads for engagement rings.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#113

Post by drewbt »

Inappropriate content can be flagged, and continuing to view or partake in discussion of extremist things, that are counter to the interests of every living thing on the planet, waive the users right to privacy, and logs of activity automatically get passed on to public protection agencies.

Or something better.

Keep refining and optimizing the system.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#114

Post by gowld »

reaperducer wrote: post #13
campfireveteran wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. You need something like Internet Archive or better that is archival quality, random internet vandalism-proof and FBI raid-proof.

Or even something more distributed. Like each public library has a storage cube and each cube has an overlapping portion of history. They checksum each other peer-to-peer to detect anyone trying to change history. There are 110,000 public libraries in the United States. Plus thousands more private libraries. Seems like enough for U.S. history, at least.

This is what BitTorrent and IPFS is for.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#115

Post by taneq »

stebann wrote: post #27

Oh yeah! Now they're taking down videos showing the Chilean soldiers and Chilean police unleashing their rage and violence against their own civilians.

Sadly the flip side of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is "a freedom fighter is always someone's terrorist."

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#116

Post by nl »

ravenstine wrote: post #76
nl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who don't want to sit though 16 minutes of ranting.. At [1] the quote is: Hillary Clinton waded into the Democratic primary on Friday by suggesting that Russia was “grooming” Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii as a third-party candidate for president. By the next day at [2] it had changed to: Hillary Clinton waded into the Democratic primary on Friday by suggesting that Russia was backing Representative…

> Conclusion: The NY Times did the correct thing in updating their reporting, and in publishing the correction. No, the correct thing would have been to not publish fake news in the first place. Oh, but they said whoops , so I guess all's well that ends well?

Given that the OP is arguing that the original version was correct (!!), because they didn't see the distinction either I'm unsure that saying it is "fake news" is useful.

But yeah, people do like easy answers rather than digging into complexity.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#117

Post by docbrown »

waffle_ss wrote: post #43
campfireveteran wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. You need something like Internet Archive or better that is archival quality, random internet vandalism-proof and FBI raid-proof.

The Islamic State posted their content for many years on the Internet Archive. I believe IA did take down content in some cases.

Modern day jihadist groups are now utilizing Telegram, Whatsapp, and TikTok to preserve and spread material. It’s quite easy to gain access to them — i’ve heard — as many researchers are gaining access to these messages to preserve said materials. Plus these apps give them an ability to easily communicate transcontinentally.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#118

Post by ddiq »

thinkingkong wrote: post #20
least wrote: post #3

Youtube and Facebook, while convenient, aren't really appropriate mediums for them to share this sort of footage. Liveleak comes to mind as a service better suited for a public repository of this video. Archival of footage shouldn't be dependent on a third party platform that can, at will, delete every single video on a whim. Likely for this sort of thing a diligent archivist will need to put in the effort of storing…

Been wondering about this phenomenon for awhile. Spotify can delete music history. Youtube can delete video history. If it's on a streaming service it may as well not exist. We're at this strange point where convenience may as well be access, because the same service you used for discovery is the one for consumption. I don't know if this phenomenon has a name.

Likewise Amazon removing books from its site is much more effective than any book burning.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#119

Post by dredmorbius »

gowld wrote: post #114
reaperducer wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or even something more distributed. Like each public library has a storage cube and each cube has an overlapping portion of history. They checksum each other peer-to-peer to detect anyone trying to change history. There are 110,000 public libraries in the United States. Plus thousands more private libraries. Seems like enough for U.S. history, at least.

This is what BitTorrent and IPFS is for.

Those are ultimately transport and distribution systems.

At some point, you need curators and archivists.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#120

Post by nemo44x »

mdszy wrote: post #64
archgoon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"To organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible" Because they claimed they cared about this sort of thing. For a while, it seemed as if they meant it.

Again, why would you believe them? Use a couple of brain cells and realize that maybe, just maybe, the things that corporations say aren't exactly true most of the time.

Parent is voted down but the cynicism, unfortunately, is well founded. Not to victim blame but there is a certain amount of distrust and suspicion we all should have with regards to any profit seeking entity - especially one that does not rely on you paying them - that makes outrage at these entities for ‘betraying us’ laughable at best.

Maybe “brain cells” is harsh but do at least use your instinct.

Post reply on HN