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

571–580 of 1001 posts

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

#571

Post by jacquesm »

pokepim wrote: post #550
11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hyper-nationalism is a backlash to globalism due to the recently realized risks of opaque governments exploiting transparent governments. The intentions were good: Reduce the risk of global nuclear war. The globalism outcome is good for trade and relations with nations that have transparent governments, bad with the opaque.

Was it really bad for US until China started working on 5G and trying to become independent in semiconductor sector? Because until that time globalism was pretty profitable in terms of trade and relations for US.

> Because until that time globalism was pretty profitable in terms of trade and relations for US.

It still is.

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

#572

Post by adventured »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #466
op03 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is the way to go. Why have the hypercorporatists and hypernationalists not replaced it??? Because fuckers in both those camps think it has to make money as a condition to exist. It's their weakness. Requires imagination to exploit.

> Why have the hypercorporatists and hypernationalists not replaced it??? It’s not profitable. Nowhere near as many people would donate money/time/edits/content to Wikipedia if it wasn’t a registered non-profit - nor would they receive donated/subsidised hosting services from their providers - and if it’s for-profit they would need to run ads - and there’s no money in generic ads so they have to be either content-bas…

> Wikipedia has a high-value because it’s a non-profit - as contradictory as that sounds.

No question. It's the primary reason its community stuck with it across the many years it took to build it up, whereas the editor communities abandon for-profit content farms like Quora or Answers.com.

> and there’s no money in generic ads

Wikipedia could operate the encyclopedia side of itself with generic advertising. There is a lot of money in generic ads, relatively speaking, when you're dishing out static text content and some images at a billion page views per day (especially when the bulk of your platform's expansion is over, so your situation re expenses is increasingly stable).

Could you run the encyclopedia thin for ~$20 million per year? Based on their budget history, you absolutely could. So could you bring in at least $20m in revenue via generic advertising, against several hundred million page views that you're able to show ads on (a bit larger than the English edition's daily page views; ie I'm heavily discounting monetizable traffic down from their global figures to tilt this even more conservatively)?

You need a CPM of around a range of $0.10 to $0.15 to at least have a shot at making it work. It's a very low number for a super premium property that sits at the top of nearly every Google search result.

You could make ten phone calls and trivially fill $20m in generic advertising every year. Pick up the phone and call: Google, Amazon, Walmart, Microsoft, Coca Cola, Procter & Gamble, Comcast, Unilever, Samsung, AT&T. At $2m each, you'd have to fight them off with a stick at those CPM rates for that reach. Procter & Gamble spends $10 billion globally on advertising, they wouldn't take $2m to slap their brands on Wikipedia? They'd probably take that every month if they could.

Would any and all manner of advertising turn off visitors and editors? Probably. That's the far bigger problem than whether Wikipedia could bring in $20m per year in advertising on their massive traffic base. Not to mention that Google might (would) start viewing them as a competitor and might (would) downgrade their content placement to neuter that risk.

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

#573

Post by dvduval »

subsubzero wrote: post #472
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.

Here are some numbers to keep you up at night, they are very scary: Google controls 91.89% of the search market [1] G controls 68% of the browser market [2] G's android is on 84% of phones operating systems [3] G has 73% of the search advertising market [4] [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/544400/market-share-of-i... [3] https://beta.trimread.com/articl…

These numbers are just for the US. Comparing this to the AT&T break-up is not even similar, because Google has but even bigger market share when you consider their international operations as well.

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

#574

Post by pm90 »

smooth_remmy wrote: post #530
pm90 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western companies don’t talk about values, Western governments do. The past few decades have seen an aggressive destruction in the power of Western governments to subdue them to Corporate power. The US is a prime example where the Republican party’s only policy platform (not even exaggerating) is “tax cuts are the solution to every problem”. The US government specifically has been declawed and dismembered by the curr…

You naively think that western governments are immune from being influenced by China. You're wrong. Governmental institutions like the WHO have been influenced by China. The German government has been influenced: they have been reluctant to criticize China. There is no magical governmental institution that is immune from this. If the president was a Democrat we'd be in this same situation.

I never said Western Governments are immune to influence from China. They are not. They do have the power to resist that influence with competent leadership, which in the past two decades has only been provided by Democratic administrations.

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

#575

Post by pathseeker »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #532
shadowgovt wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. In some cases, Google has addressed this by Balkanizing their rulesets. Sometimes semi-literally; the territorial boundaries Google Maps shows are contingent upon the request's point of origin in some disputed regions [ https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/12/302337754... ] Using such an approach on the global channels like YT comments isn't an option (unless they choose to Balkanize them, and let onl…

Sure, but that only works if countries' laws find that acceptable. If China says that you have to delete something from US users if you want to do business in China, they have every legal right to do so: As the sovereign ruler of the land, they decide who does business there, and they can set any requirement they see fit. So Balkanized rulesets might work for some countries but not others. China is well known for exe…

>As the sovereign ruler of the land, they decide who does business there, and they can set any requirement they see fit.

At the potential cost of a trade war of course.

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

#576

Post by cwhiz »

foldr wrote: post #369
manigandham wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by not "actually working"? What is a "conflict-free environment"? What does hate speech have to do with minority populations? Do people within those populations never say hateful things, even to each other? How do you know they never participated in any forums? This sounds like an awful lot of assumptions.

>What does hate speech have to do with minority populations? Come on. There's a debate to be had about hate speech and free speech, but it can't even get started on a reasonable footing if some of the participants don't know enough history to be able to answer this question.

There are no laws in the United States against hate speech. It is a made up term that changes with the wind. It used to describe speech that was encouraging violence towards a person or group but then it just became "speech that expresses hate." Nowadays it is mostly used to describe speech from a majority group that a minority group found offensive.

What is hate? What is offensive? It's whatever you want it to be!

When in doubt, err on the side of freedom and liberty.

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

#577

Post by dang »

missosoup wrote: post #535
dang wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was flagged by users and set off the flamewar detector. We review those, but not while asleep. The site guidelines specifically ask you not to post like this, but to send such questions to hn@ycombinator.com instead. Would you please review them ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html )? The reason we ask that is that such comments routinely spark completely speculative subthreads that range from comple…

It seems like my comment was also vanished from the top of the thread? I don't see what guidelines I came even close to breaking. Help me out here? No one's going to see your reply, my comment is detached from the submission. But I do want to understand what's going on here.

Of course I marked it off topic. It's the most off topic thing you could possibly have posted.

Guideline: "Please don't post on HN to ask or tell us something. Send it to hn@ycombinator.com."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#579

Post by cryptonector »

sangnoir wrote: post #475
cryptonector wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? The impeachment is over. Everyone knows the whistleblower's identity -- it can't be protected. Horse, barn, door.

I actively didn't want to know the identity of this whistle-blower. I wish parent had put the name at the end of the comment so I could skip it entirely. I will not take part in some chilling-effect and/or stochastic terrorism effort (see Ping Pong Pizza incident); I understand why Google, wikipedia and Facebook wouldn't want to be party to that either.

It doesn't matter that you didn't want to know -- all the people whose knowing of this matters... know, they all know. If you wanted the whistleblower to avoid reprisals by having his identity kept secret, it's too late.

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

#580

Post by davesque »

trfhuhg wrote: post #495
davesque wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Uhuh. Are you Ted Kaczynski then out in the wilderness right now using the internet through a satellite dish?
Post reply on HN