Live data from Hacker News

YouTube blocked chess channel after mistaken detection of racial slurs

news18.com

481–490 of 584 posts

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

#481
post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that reckoning with racism is uncomfortable, but I don't understand how that 99 percent invisible episode is a personal attack on you. If anything, it's a reminder that well intensioned design (saving downtown) can have consequences (increased policing of Black men). I have seen and listened to a lot of race-conscious content over the last few years. As a white man, I can't say I've taken any of it as a…

It's not that it is a personal attack, it's more that I expect more talk about the actual architecture and infrastructure behind the topic versus making it a political topic. I didn't notice them providing any statistics in regards to the racial issues. All I noticed was anecdotal evidence and an incredibly biased account of a single police encounter that happened back in 2014. They are using one guys story and a sin…

> I expect more talk about the actual architecture and infrastructure behind the topic versus making it a political topic.

The problem with this line of thinking is that everything is political. If they had chosen not to address the possible racial implications, other people who felt strongly about those may have felt that the negative social impact that they perceive was being deliberately ignored, and they would have been right to the same extent that you are.

It is similar to the choice of making or not making global warming a game mechanic in the Civilization series of games: either option will be seen as "political" by some people and "apolitical" by others. It's a distinction without a difference.

Not saying something is not inherently less political than talking about it.

Note: I have no idea or even opinion about the actual political implications of skyways. Perhaps they are a real problem, perhaps they are a fringe idea like opposition to the word "blacklist" (a word which existed in the English language since Prince John).

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

#482

“ The researchers now suggest that social-media platforms should incorporate chess language in their algorithms to avoid future incidents like this.” Or maybe don’t automate banning YouTube channels via nebulous black boxes? Or can advertisers stop being afraid of anything and everything?

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…

This isn't true.

I am sure that you believe it's true, but advertisers have been used to being able to control what content they were put next to for a long time. I don't know whether it matters, or is valuable, but I do know that they have cared for long enough that it has been one of the largest influences on literally what television programs got made (even if this influence appears oblique, it has been one of the primary motivations of the folks making these decisions).

You can make an argument that the Internet allows things to work differently, but I think it was simply a matter of what was practical - once it became ~ practical to start exercising some control over what you're associating your brand with, of course folks would jump to pull that lever.

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

#483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should people be allowed to watch anything except what's best for them? /s

I don't care if what you watch is good or bad for you . I care if what you watch turns you into a threat to me . Based on the past few years, it looks like maybe 20% of the general population is suggestible enough to endanger the rest of us.

What should we do about the 20%?

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

#484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Is there somewhere in the middle because you resent these activists and crave even more reasons to be mad at them?

Because these extremely small set of activists include the UK’s government and the newspaper The Guardian who pulled their ads due to YouTube placing them next to “extremist content”. Not to mention the numerous US government watchdogs who have been sniffing out a way to thwart google and Facebook for years now.

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

#485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Soviets put their dissidents into mental hospitals, because obviously they were crazy and dangerous to oppose socialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_...

A more accurate analogy would be 'the Soviets didn't give them airtime on All Union Radio'

You are a shining example of your ideology.

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

#486
post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus Christ, stop downvoting and flagging these comments. As much as I disagree with the comment, it correctly explains what the disagreement is, which is that we have different definitions of racism. According to this brave new definition of racism, KKK is not inherently racist, because it's a systemic issue, not an individual issue.

The KKK were part of the system, and the system in many states supported them, either tacitly or even openly in some cases. Members of the KKK rose to the highest positions in local and federal politics and influenced police and lawmaking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United... The rise of the different incarnations of the Klan can be directly tied to politics of segregation, Jim Crow laws an…

But are not now. There are groups with similar messages that never had any power.

BLM also have supporters in the highest positions and also influenced police and lawmaking, some places actually did defunded their police force.

My point still stands. According to that definition, in the alternate universe KKK or NSDAP would not be considered racist, if they didn't have the majority of support.

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

#487
post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not on either side. I don't even live in the United States. But one side, the Republican side, is batshitinsane and believes things that are provably untrue - Obama is a Muslim, climate change is a Chinese hoax, COVID-19 is the flu, that sort of thing. The Democrats are just run-of-the-mill, low-energy centrist politicians.

Ha, ha! Let me tell you what I think the Democrats believe. For one, that men can carry babies like in that Schwarzenegger movie!

Generalizations are useful until they aren't! Let's put our thinking hats for a sec don't you think?

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

#488

“ The researchers now suggest that social-media platforms should incorporate chess language in their algorithms to avoid future incidents like this.” Or maybe don’t automate banning YouTube channels via nebulous black boxes? Or can advertisers stop being afraid of anything and everything?

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…

[deleted]

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

#489

“ The researchers now suggest that social-media platforms should incorporate chess language in their algorithms to avoid future incidents like this.” Or maybe don’t automate banning YouTube channels via nebulous black boxes? Or can advertisers stop being afraid of anything and everything?

Or maybe cancel/ban chess, as it promotes racial differences and dispute settling by the means of aggression/opponent termination. A harmonized/normalized society may not see the color differences or military-style subordination with royal elites hiding behind sacrificial peasants. At least make all figure look alike, gender-less and class-less and color them in random rainbow colors.

Is this a joke? I'm sometimes unsure in the digital medium.

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

#490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there somewhere in the middle because you resent these activists and crave even more reasons to be mad at them? Because these extremely small set of activists include the UK’s government and the newspaper The Guardian who pulled their ads due to YouTube placing them next to “extremist content”. Not to mention the numerous US government watchdogs who have been sniffing out a way to thwart google and Facebook for ye…

I was more referring to the people mentioned elsewhere in the thread, people who declare a new benign thing 'offensive' every month or two and then go on a scolding crusade.

As far as actual extreme reactionary content.. I don't know what the solution is. I'd put "the middle" as stop promoting them because they hit your engagement metrics, but be much more cautious about banning them, giving them martyrdom points and an incentive to organize better.

Ultimately the villain here is engagement-optimizing recommendation algos. The current situation is a small reactionary channel will be promoted for engagement, until it's big and people notice, and THEN it's banned, with a maximum of negative impact. Worst of all worlds.

Post reply on HN