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

YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

news18.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 584 posts

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#451

Post by iaml »

f430 wrote: post #329
Fogest wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is obviously associating racism with something not intentionally racist. But does it not strike to you at all problematic, at the moment, that 'black' is a synonym of 'bad' and 'white' of 'good'? Does it not occur to you that it might improve our language to change that? Honestly, lately I feel like the opposite is the case. Everywhere I go anywhere online all I see is white people being shit on. I see incredibl…

> Honestly, lately I feel like the opposite is the case. Everywhere I go anywhere online all I see is white people being shit on. I see incredibly racist things being said about white people everywhere online and there are zero consequences for it. In fact they often get praised for it. So no, I think what you're saying is far from being true. It's not just whites but east asians, jews as well. The whole idea derives…

> was permanently banned for saying "niggardly use of ammo packs"

As a non-native english speaker, if I didn't look up the word in dictionary, I would likely assume it was a derivative of that other word. I can see how that would lead to a ban if moderator didn't bother checking, especially if they are moderating 13 year olds mostly.

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#452

Post by uniqueid »

nicky0 wrote: post #351
uniqueid wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the other guy is saying the same thing you are. Then I hope I win. Cause the other guy really likes firearms and believes Bill Gates is some sort of satanic reptilian timelord. Facebook's new governing body are interesting, but I fear will be troublesome in other ways. I don't see that model making anyone happy because I believe true impartiality is impossible. The honest and less bureaucratic app…

Essentually you are saying: "The other side is wrong, and my side is right." It's not really a nuanced point about the broader issue of speech.

The point I had in mind is that ideology is well and good, but sometimes pragmatism is better.

If a desire for free speech, to pick a contemporary example, leads to defending the 'right' of the Myanmar military to use Facebook for their coup to oppress the Burmese, pragmatism is probably better.

Consider Qanon people, or NeoNazis, or Boogaloo Boys, etc. It is impossible to prove beyond any doubt that are more dangerous or more wrong than 'normal' people. But if we're being pragmatic, there isn't a reasonable doubt.

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#453

Post by prepend »

pjc50 wrote: post #428
read_if_gay_ wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is insane how people will always continue to blame the other side even when replying to a comment pointing out how basically everyone on the political spectrum currently feels this way.

Well, yes, everyone feels that way, but whose feelings are well-founded and whose aren't? This is the difference between "we are banning substance X because we did a controlled experiment and found it to be carcinogenic", and "we are banning X because we are afraid of ghosts".

> whose feelings are well-founded and whose aren't?

This is the gist of it and is really hard to tell, even though some people claim it’s easy.

I would measure what side makes sense based on their recommended interventions. For example, if one side is so certain they want to ban speech that contradicts them then they are probably wrong.

It takes pretty clear evidence for what is right and wrong and lots of effort to determine. So it’s usually hard to dedicate those resources to topics.

Of course there are lots of sides and not just two so it becomes harder and harder.

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#454

Post by m1gu3l »

Fogest wrote: post #287
onethought wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone tries to dismiss an opinion by calling someone a "privileged white male" how would that be any better than dismissing someone's opinion for being black? Context matters... if you are in the position of privilege and saying things that you can only say because of your position. Then I can see why some people would dismiss it. The difference is: if you try to dismiss someone in a minority position for sayi…

Then why would race be relevant? Why would someone not just say "you're too privileged to understand"? Why would they instead say "you're just a privileged white male and don't understand"? I disagree with that logic you are using. Your logic seems racist to me. You are assuming a black person = less privileged and a white person = more privileged. I view both of these assumptions as racist. I think it is wrong to as…

Fogest, I want to thank you for motivating me to get away from this site. Good luck with sorting out your feelings on this.

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#455

Post by singularity2001 »

toto444 wrote: post #441

I wonder if this could be manipulated the way redditors used to manipulate Google image by posting 'this is a house' with an image of a potato and after enough upvotes, the potato would appear first if you searched house on Google image. What if people start publishing hate speech but replace the hateful words by, say, 'Alphabet' ? Will the AI learn that Alphabet is a hateful word ? Surely someone with enough resourc…

good idea but no need for that: The word 'Google' is increasingly so loaded with hatred against it, that in the future the algorithm will just ban the whole mother company.

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#456

Post by juanani »

TomSwirly wrote: post #431
fooqux wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the other guy is saying the same thing you are. The radical left and the radical right both think each other's points are dangerous. And the moderates are pointing at both sides and claiming the same thing. From their respective viewpoints, they're in the "right", just as you think you are. There's a slippery slope here, and I feel it's one so large that we can't even tell we're already sliding on…

> The problem is that the other guy is saying the same thing you are. The other guy is also claiming that Trump won the election, global heating is a hoax, COVID-19 is a hoax, Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, and his wife Michelle is a man. > And the moderates are pointing at both sides and claiming the same thing. Sorry, this just isn't so. Your answer boils down to this: "There is no truth. If one person says Michelle…

Have you personally seen Michelle Obama's sexual organs that you can 100% be certain with your claims?

Every since the ban on free speech, I really haven't followed what the conspiracies are. What I do hear is 3rd party reports on what those conspiracies are and what 'they believe'.

You listed off a bunch of nonsense - do you really think people actually believe that crap or are you the one fooled into thinking someone actually believes that? The more outlandish they sound, the better case for censoring, right? These cases just sound like a reporter went on 4chan, decided they dont like this so they must be the 'other side'. And it was enough to convince the majority that censorship is the way.

Better phrased, let's stop giving attention to a desperate media who's only function in this past decade is cancelling culture they don't approve. (culture censorship)

Both sides are extremely polarized, only one side seems to be able to share their opinion online. One side believes this is proper because they answer to the 'science'. What does the science say about censorship? We've seen it before.

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#457

Post by Barrin92 »

pishpash wrote: post #260
bartread wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear in mind what we have here is an example of the cutting edge of AI in its real world use. It doesn't exactly inspire faith in AI if some of the best is this thick when it comes to making decisions that would be incredibly basic for a human of even below average intelligence.

Are you sure a human, never mind one of below average intelligence, gets this? We have people right now in Silicon Valley calling for renaming CS words because they sound racist to them.

of course a human might screw up but OPs general point is right. The AI doesn't even know what 'racism' is. It doesn't know what 'chess' is. It can't do context and it doesn't understand meaning, it just correlates audio signal.

That this often looks like intelligence doesn't change the fact that it's incredibly far away from the real thing.

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#458

Post by uniqueid »

concordDance wrote: post #402
uniqueid wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the other guy is saying the same thing you are. Then I hope I win. Cause the other guy really likes firearms and believes Bill Gates is some sort of satanic reptilian timelord. Facebook's new governing body are interesting, but I fear will be troublesome in other ways. I don't see that model making anyone happy because I believe true impartiality is impossible. The honest and less bureaucratic app…

You seem to be conflating racists with believing Bill Gates is a lizardman. While there may be some overlap I don't think that's an accurate look at the world.

We don't disagree there. I wanted to echo the 'other guy' phrase in the comment to which I was replying, but 'other guys' would be less ambiguous. On social media today, there are several different potentially violent movements that concern me.

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#459

Post by koheripbal »

ben509 wrote: post #50
lwouis wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You kid but i've received 2 pull-requests on my open-source project, which only goal was to replace "Blacklist" with "Blocklist" in the app preferences. I don't receive many PRs. This is a real trend.

A lot of language-fixing slacktivism easily becomes a trend because it's highly visible and requires no genuine effort. It's complete bullshit, though. This particular bullshit is awful since it trivializes all this historic pain to some inane game of word association. There's no point arguing, though, just drag your heels until they get bored and go off on some other crusade.

It's a great way to highlight which accounts to blacklist from contributing.

Maybe we should develop a central spamlist.

Re: YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

#460

Post by refenestrator »

mschuster91 wrote: post #415
drak0n1c wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertisers, youtubers, users, brands - everyone was happy prior to the era of demonetization. What killed the golden goose was an extremely small set of activists and journalists (specifically Media Matters and Vox) methodically threatening brands with publication of screenshots of their "support" for controversial niche videos. And just enough brand marketing and YouTube employees were cowed, or at least ideologica…

> What killed the golden goose was an extremely small set of activists and journalists (specifically Media Matters and Vox) methodically threatening brands with publication of screenshots of their "support" for controversial niche videos. Wrong. There are multiple points that come in play here, none of which are as simple as "the activists are protesting against Nazi and conspiracy crap": First of all, linear TV, rad…

FWIW, I agree with your entire analysis here yet still resent the "extremely small set of activists" and think they go way too far.

There's probably room in the middle somewhere.

Post reply on HN