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

YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 269 posts

Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative

#231

Post by slumdev »

bserge wrote: post #166
slumdev wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what is Google's exposure here? They want in. They really want in. And they're not alone. Google and every other company dream that, one day, the Great Firewall will come down, and they'll suddenly have a billion more customers. They have a great financial incentive (like every other company) to ignore the Uyghur genocide and the literal concentration camps in Xinjiang.

But they're not getting in. Why would the CCP allow it? They support Chinese companies.

MBA thinking guides these companies.

There's no cost to suppressing coverage of the Uyghur genocide because Western boycotts are virtually nonexistent.

The upside of suppressing coverage of the Uyghur genocide can be calculated as the probability of the Chinese market opening up multiplied by the potential value of that market. As long as the probability is nonzero, this upside is huge.

Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative

#232

Post by lobocinza »

jeswin wrote: post #134

I doubt this was YouTube policy, or that it was driven from the top. If it was, we'd have seen a few leaks. This is more likely mass reporting of such content (perhaps organized by State apparatus), exploiting the automated flagging algorithm. In any case, I hope Google takes a stand now.

True but will they take a stand? Algorithms are an excuse to wash hands.

Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative

#233

Post by ksec »

uranusjr wrote: post #227
ksec wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people are far underestimating the Chinese influence. 1. Chinese working within Google and Youtube are just like working in Facebook [1], from Peter Thiel . > At Facebook, I’ll give you an example. You had with the Hong Kong protest a year ago, the employees from Hong Kong were all in favor of the protests and free speech. But there were more employees at Facebook who were born in China than who were born in Hon…

This is spot on. The decision is not made not (necessarily) because it benefits the company, but because more middle management actually think it’s “right”. FAANG are practically run by Chinese these days. (I am Taiwanese and hear about this kind of struggles all the time from friends working in US companies.)

Yes and it is not just in Tech as well, if you look around Fortune Global 500 the are pretty much the same. But tech is used as an example here because of its reach and HN's audience.

Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative

#234

Post by lobocinza »

_-david-_ wrote: post #147
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #31

We're back at the platform vs. publisher debate... I think this should be a either-or thing, that every webpage chooses. Then, you're either a platform, and can only remove directly illegal stuff (or when told by the courts to do so), or a publisher, decide what content you publish and what you remove, and then carry the full responsibility for that content. The current situation, where pages like youtube can act as…

I am in general agreement with you, but I think there should be a way for internet platforms to ban certain content. YouTube shouldn't be required to host porn (or anything too raunchy) just because it is a platform. This would almost certainly lead to young kids seeing porn. I know YouTube has age restriction videos but a parent could easily be signed in to their account which allows NSFW material and the next thing…

Clear rules are a start. If Youtube don't want to host sensitive political content they should ban political/news content entirely and not ad-hoc.

Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative

#235

Post by uranusjr »

ksec wrote: post #233
uranusjr wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is spot on. The decision is not made not (necessarily) because it benefits the company, but because more middle management actually think it’s “right”. FAANG are practically run by Chinese these days. (I am Taiwanese and hear about this kind of struggles all the time from friends working in US companies.)

Yes and it is not just in Tech as well, if you look around Fortune Global 500 the are pretty much the same. But tech is used as an example here because of its reach and HN's audience.

Exactly. Media as well. They are everywhere (which is not a problem) and always keep Chinese interest above everything wherever they go (which is the problem).

Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative

#236

Post by badsectoracula »

perihelions wrote: post #176
badsectoracula wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't much info about LBRY outside of LBRY itself, though the few links i could find didn't paint a good idea. The most concerning is this: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/50tyub/were_the_nerds... I wonder why they didn't just go with some Peertube instance.

>"why they didn't just" From the article, I got the impression they're a marginal group of activists doing social media stuff in between jail sentences (they're based in Kazakhstan). They don't exactly have a CTO. I'd imagine tech information asymmetry is an overwhelming factor when FAANG is no longer helping you. "Serikzhan Bilash, a Xinjiang-born Kazakh activist who co-founded the channel and has been arrested mult…

I meant why didn't they used some existing Peertube instance. Since they went with Odysee they did some research into alternatives.

I mean it could just be as simple as Odysee having better marketing, though personally i've seen Peertube be mentioned very often and this thread is the first time i heard about Odysee.

Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative

#237

Post by treeman79 »

roenxi wrote: post #106
treeman79 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s past reinforcement bias and moved into picking winners.

It's the fact that the censors are there to step in for things that are plausibly true. There isn't any need to censor flat-earth theories. Nobody cares, it doesn't have any implications and it easy to disprove (eg, the fact that the horizon dips away). The censors only get really active for things that could plausibly be true or things that are absolutely true but inconvenient to the people who control the censorshi…

Not talking about flat earters. I’m taking about tech companies picking election winners by “fact checking”/suppressing stories that make their chosen guy look bad.

Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative

#238

Post by seppin »

gre wrote: post #186
commoner wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Xinjiang is indeed highly locked down, and foreign reporters are not allowed to enter most parts of the region unless they are producing content that aligns with the Chinese government's message. Daniel Dumbrill is absolutely not a credible source. Edit: Corrected from "the region" to "most parts of the region". From 2018: > Transportation presents significant obstacles, too. Roughly the size of Alaska, Xinjiang enco…

Point me to some sources not associated with Zenz. I would love to get to the bottom of this!

Why? You have yet to explain why that researcher isn't credible, and every attack i've seen on him is emotional nonsense and/or clearly Chinese state-backed.

Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative

#239

Post by ajsnigrutin »

_-david-_ wrote: post #230
callmejoe wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

would that not be the parent's responsibility then? this argument reeks of "but think of the children" fallacy.

The parents would have no way of stopping it. If you want to allow child friendly content on YouTube you could not block YouTube on the computer. If YouTube put all nsfw content on nsfw.youtube.com then maybe you could make the argument but the average parent has no clue how to block a domain. I am not making the argument porn should be banned, only that certain platforms should not be required to host it especially…

What's the difference between nsfw.youtube.com and pornhub?

And youtube already hosts a lot of 18+ content, where you have to be signed in to see.

Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative

#240

Post by ajsnigrutin »

_-david-_ wrote: post #147
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #31

We're back at the platform vs. publisher debate... I think this should be a either-or thing, that every webpage chooses. Then, you're either a platform, and can only remove directly illegal stuff (or when told by the courts to do so), or a publisher, decide what content you publish and what you remove, and then carry the full responsibility for that content. The current situation, where pages like youtube can act as…

I am in general agreement with you, but I think there should be a way for internet platforms to ban certain content. YouTube shouldn't be required to host porn (or anything too raunchy) just because it is a platform. This would almost certainly lead to young kids seeing porn. I know YouTube has age restriction videos but a parent could easily be signed in to their account which allows NSFW material and the next thing…

But youtube already hosts a lot of 18+ material (not porn, but still requires you to be signed in and verify your age). Same with eg. reddit.
Post reply on HN