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

Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

support.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#491

Post by tomatotomato37 »

mbostleman wrote: post #378
koheripbal wrote: post #112

I think a more fundamental problem is a single private company having a near-monopoly on various public communication channels, and having financial interests in various global dictatorships. The Founding Fathers could not have predicted this. Google's "We're a private company" get-out-jail-free card cannot continue to apply.

>>The Founding Fathers could not have predicted this.>> Sure they could. They had the East India Tea Company. I'm not a legal expert but it seems like the fundamentals are pretty simple and timeless. If they have a monopoly, then their private get-out-jail-free card no longer applies.

The East India Tea Company wasn't a fully antonymous entity though by the time of the American Revolution; it was more equivalent to a state-owned enterprise found in the likes of modern day China. Because of this any "powerful" moves the company made was assumed to be an extension of British political will moreso than that of some profit-seeking NGO.

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#492

Post by root_axis »

manigandham wrote: post #119
gabaix wrote: post #63

Youtube is in a tough spot. They will be blamed: - if they don't take down speech some consider hateful - if they take down speech some do not consider hateful 共匪 is seen as an insult by a group, but others do not. If Youtube bans nothing, then hate speech thrives and they get bad PR. If Youtube bans anything anyone flags as hate speech, then they become de facto as censorship agents for foreign powers. Anything crit…

The solution is to realize "hate speech" is mostly subjective and revert back to the clear rules that we had last decade before the current political climate of gratuitous outrage.

What if moderation of hate speech is part of the product?

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#493

Post by joshuamorton »

manigandham wrote: post #465
joshuamorton wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the first result from Googling "hate speech": > public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation I might broaden the final bit to "immutable characteristics" instead of the specific list they provide. For the same reason, I probably wouldn't consider the comment under discussion hate speech, but I'm really c…

Encouraging violence has clear rules under the 1st amendment which is covered in my original comment. What does "expressing hate" mean? Why does it matter what characteristics are used? Is it ok to "express hate" based on the clothes you wear or job you do? If you remove the characteristics, then it just says hate speech is speech that expresses hate. It's a tautological and useless definition.

> Is it ok to "express hate" based on the clothes you wear or job you do?

Morally? No I don't think we should go around expressing hate much at all. It's not productive and, well, hateful. I think the question you mean to ask is "do you believe that expressing hate based on your clothes or job should be censored to the same extent that hate based on immutable characteristics is?"

The answer to that question is also no. This is mostly due to the relative dangers. Hate speech can (and does!) lead to dehumanization and discrimination. Nipping that in the bud is worth it. But creating the outgroup needed for discrimination is much more difficult if it's based on a job or an item of clothing (unless that item of clothing is something you're required to wear that identifies you with a specific immutable characteristic, like a star or pink triangle).

> So hate speech is speech that expresses hate?

No, you keep changing the definition. I don't. Please stop. Your definition is useless because you keep changing it to one that you feel is useless. If you refuse to use the definitions that others use, and instead you only use one that you've defined with the intent to be nearly useless, then yes, you will find the term useless. The rest of us will continue to ignore your trolling.

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#494

Post by type0 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #192
gabaix wrote: post #63

Youtube is in a tough spot. They will be blamed: - if they don't take down speech some consider hateful - if they take down speech some do not consider hateful 共匪 is seen as an insult by a group, but others do not. If Youtube bans nothing, then hate speech thrives and they get bad PR. If Youtube bans anything anyone flags as hate speech, then they become de facto as censorship agents for foreign powers. Anything crit…

> 共匪 is seen as an insult by a group, but others do not This is where the legal concept of protected classes may be helpful. They're sets of attributes society has deemed one cannot discriminate against. That tends to line up well with said society's line between insulting and hateful. As a legal definition, these class definitions tend to be precise. That makes them convenient for exporting. Notably, political affil…

Would politicians themselves be a protected class? Precisely how this kind of conflicts could be solved /s

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#495

Post by trfhuhg »

davesque wrote: post #303
ajconway wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you justify being a citizen of your country? (not sure what country that is, but most of them have done bad things in the past). It's possible to be a part of a large organization and not agree with its every action.

This analogy holds water about as well as a sieve. You can't shop around citizenship in most other countries. You can't just willy-nilly decide to renounce citizenship in one and go become a citizen in another. I'm sure people will jump in here with counter examples but I'm also sure they'll be the exception and not the norm. You're also born into citizenship. Comparing citizenship to the job market just seems so sil…

Nice mental gymnastics. There's always a choice to not support the country by not participating in its economy and becoming a hermit. Ah, but that's inconvenient!

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#496

Post by streb-lo »

koheripbal wrote: post #366
jonny_eh wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Founding Fathers could not have predicted this. Who cares what a bunch of dead slave owners thought. We should be able to decide for ourselves what kind of laws we have, let's stop second guessing these guys that rarely even agreed with each other.

My point was that the Constitution does not handle the current situation - not specifically that the authors thought of it or not.

OK, but why is there so much Constitution/Founding Father worship in America?

It's a flawed document that has lead to a flawed nation. It does not have Messiah-like abilities to deal with current problems so why be surprised it doesn't have modern solutions to modern problems.

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#497

Post by bradly »

shadowgovt wrote: post #299
bradly wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s almost impossible to lead en ethical life in this day and age if you do anything related to tech. That doesn't change that an engineer in the bay area can choose to work for Google or choose to find an alternative place of employment. People can choose more ethical choices without living in a pure ethical panacea.

Sure, but then we're back to "What mental gymnastics do techies do to justify buying hardware they know is made in sweatshop conditions in China?" Take that template and apply it to Googlers. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism; everyone has compromised a rigid belief structure somewhere.

I don't think it has to be mental gymnastics, but you are right that it is a real challenge.

I think people (especially those in privileged positions like engs in the bay area) should feel empowered to think and decide their line as to what they want to support and contribute to the world.

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#498

Post by eeZah7Ux »

101404 wrote: post #390
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so fast. All societies need to draw a line on where speech constitute offense, libel, or even death threats.

Societies, yes. But when compones do it, they will use the lowest bar, because they have a financial interest to keep even the most unreasonable person as a customer.

I fully agree that companies should not have this power. But this was not my point: I wrote "societies".

Downvoters: care to explain?

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#499

Post by Flantastical »

manigandham wrote: post #119
gabaix wrote: post #63

Youtube is in a tough spot. They will be blamed: - if they don't take down speech some consider hateful - if they take down speech some do not consider hateful 共匪 is seen as an insult by a group, but others do not. If Youtube bans nothing, then hate speech thrives and they get bad PR. If Youtube bans anything anyone flags as hate speech, then they become de facto as censorship agents for foreign powers. Anything crit…

The solution is to realize "hate speech" is mostly subjective and revert back to the clear rules that we had last decade before the current political climate of gratuitous outrage.

I think part of the issue is the power of comments like yours that pretends there's a simple solution.

In some conversations bad actors can gain more power in a debate using misleading information than a good actor can by using the truth.

Most conversations, such as this one about free speech, are so complex that it's tough for a 'good actor' to offer solutions. They may discuss the pros / cons of each side, talk about where further research is needed, talk about experts that are more informed, etc. They can still offer solutions but they shouldn't be pretending an unconfident solution is complete if they really are a good actor.

Bad actors, on the other hand, can simplify the complexities. They can provide confident solutions to complex problems and do so without worrying about the information they don't know or about misleading others.

Fortunately bad actors are often weeded out in discussions, but in conversations that abuse humans fear we become more demanding of answers. Explaining to fearful people "it's complex" isn't satisfying so we become more susceptible to lies / misinformation spread by bad actors. Conversations abusing this fear / anger is where there is an argument about whether misinformation should be limited.

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#500

Post by ddevault »

geofft wrote: post #490
ddevault wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google employees have proven themselves capable of collective action: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/technology/google-walkout... Do it again.

I'm not sure how that addresses the points I raised - what was the outcome of that walkout? (Besides some retaliation against organizers.)

Unfortunately little - because the workers didn't stick to it. One walkout writes a headline, but a strike causes change.
Post reply on HN