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

UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–158 of 158 posts

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#151

Post by bad_username »

zimpenfish wrote: post #120
lamppost123 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe there are many schools of CRT, so nitpicking is always possible. Di Angelo, whose views are being taught at Google, seems to believe that white privilege and white unconscious racism are prevalent. I'm not sure that this is a "right wing" talking point. Here is a Black man, who studied CS at Oxford, talking about white privilege: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAo3t_KWHhI

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAo3t_KWHhI I mean, looking at the content, that's a heavily conservative, definitely alt-right, if not outright right-wing, channel. And the segment immediately prior to him proclaiming the white privilege is "a garbage concept" is him proudly relating the story about how he triggered and trolled people by "identifying as a female powerlifter" and all the alt-right people who covere…

It sounds like you are using "conservative" or "right wing" to mean "wrong" or "bad".

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#152

Post by hliyan »

mojzu wrote: post #78
hliyan wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we be more forgiving of harm done by faulty algorithms than by negligent human beings? It was the company's choice to save money by automating a process that normally only human beings can do reliably. The consequences to the victim are the same regardless of the instrument used in the commission of the wrongdoing.

Given the quantity of video uploaded to youtube I'm not sure human moderation of any significant amount of it is even possible anymore. Humans are definitely better at handling many situations but are also prone to their own biases (e.g. there were facebook moderators a while back who would take down reported content they disagreed with for religious reasons), they are often not given enough time to reasonably review…

My personal belief is "that won't scale" is not a good reason for bypassing ethical or socially responsible behavior.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#153

Post by hliyan »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #133
mojzu wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the quantity of video uploaded to youtube I'm not sure human moderation of any significant amount of it is even possible anymore. Humans are definitely better at handling many situations but are also prone to their own biases (e.g. there were facebook moderators a while back who would take down reported content they disagreed with for religious reasons), they are often not given enough time to reasonably review…

"human moderation of any significant amount of it is even possible anymore." Then maybe free video hosting is not a viable business, why should youtube destroy all competition and then complain that checking their uploads is not possoble?

Exactly. Perhaps if lots of little video hosting companies existed, this wouldn't be an issue. "Too big to do the right thing" seems like an even worse version of "Too big to fail".

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#154

Post by mojzu »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #133
mojzu wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the quantity of video uploaded to youtube I'm not sure human moderation of any significant amount of it is even possible anymore. Humans are definitely better at handling many situations but are also prone to their own biases (e.g. there were facebook moderators a while back who would take down reported content they disagreed with for religious reasons), they are often not given enough time to reasonably review…

"human moderation of any significant amount of it is even possible anymore." Then maybe free video hosting is not a viable business, why should youtube destroy all competition and then complain that checking their uploads is not possoble?

The argument that these companies are too big and that creates bad incentives/lack of incentives to improve is one I'm much more sympathetic to. I'd be in favour of more smaller companies/communities although I don't think this would remove the need for automated tools (e.g. smallish reddit and discord communities often use bots and other tools to automate some moderation). And to make something like this a reality you'd probably need government intervention to overcome the network effect that these bigger platforms have

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#155

Post by zimpenfish »

bad_username wrote: post #151
zimpenfish wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAo3t_KWHhI I mean, looking at the content, that's a heavily conservative, definitely alt-right, if not outright right-wing, channel. And the segment immediately prior to him proclaiming the white privilege is "a garbage concept" is him proudly relating the story about how he triggered and trolled people by "identifying as a female powerlifter" and all the alt-right people who covere…

It sounds like you are using "conservative" or "right wing" to mean "wrong" or "bad".

Given I fundamentally disagree with a lot of right-wing / conservative opinions, I suppose I would consider then "wrong", yes.

"bad", not as much, until those opinions start to impact (mostly vulnerable) people negatively.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#156

Post by ralfn »

true_religion wrote: post #137
ralfn wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Should we "assume the best" by assuming this was taken down by AI, and without human check? How is that 'the best'. Only Silicon Valley thinks that is a valid legal excuse for anything. If you can't operate within the law you can't operate. The US better start regulating their companies or you end up with a trade war due to the whole world including Europe just kicking these vendors out of the market entirely and pe…

Okay. So it wasn’t a mistake. Google like any other media company decided to exercise editorial control and let part A speak while muzzling party B. Now what? There is no consensus of what to do with political speech and media. In some counties only the ruling government gets access. In some counties, only the leading parties have access and all must share time equally. In others, you only get the access that you can…

>There is no consensus of what to do with political speech and media.

There is though. The general consensus of free societies is that the democratically elected government regulates speech and not the market.

The problem is youtube/facbeook/instagram/linked-in perform functions that one would normally classify as 'public space'. Obviously that might need some level of policing, because some speech is criminal (like a threat of violence made to another person). But private companies shouldn't be forced to police.

I blame the lack of regulations much more than the for profit companies trying to make a profit (they are legally bound to pursuit profit by their stock holders).

The trouble is the US is allergic to do such a thing, and when another country starts regulation the companies of one of their biggest trade ally's...

So, please, uncle Sam. Can you please make sure the ToS of facebook and the like, is written by your congress. So that there is direct democratic influence on it? Even Facebook will like a lot better that way, because it actually allows them to stop pretending to be 'the facebook state' and can just go back to 'facebook, the for profit company'.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#157

Post by ralfn »

revolvingocelot wrote: post #121
ralfn wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Should we "assume the best" by assuming this was taken down by AI, and without human check? How is that 'the best'. Only Silicon Valley thinks that is a valid legal excuse for anything. If you can't operate within the law you can't operate. The US better start regulating their companies or you end up with a trade war due to the whole world including Europe just kicking these vendors out of the market entirely and pe…

>If you can't operate within the law you can't operate That's demonstrably untrue. Look at the rise of Uber. If I started running an unlicensed taxi, they'd come down on me very hard and very quickly, but Uber had the resources to tie up enforcement until public opinion about their VC-subsidized "taxis" prevented any action.

>they'd come down on me very hard and very quickly

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but here in the Netherlands, it wouldn't have been the state that would come down 'hard'. (its the other cab drivers, physically assaulting you)

As a response to this kind of energy, we actually ended up liberizing our cab market a lot more before Uber came. And when Uber came here there was no good will for the existing established cab companies, because people considered them borderline mobsters.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#158

Post by jf22 »

gavinhoward wrote: post #146
jf22 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could be specific which "group" this is?

Jews (plenty of examples including the Holocaust). LGBT+ (unless you think that what happened to Alan Turing wasn't persecution). Muslims (by Christians and others). Christians (by Romans throwing them to the lions and others). If there is a group, chances are it's been censored and persecuted. I know that I'm supposed to assume the best, but with you it's pretty hard because history is so full of examples that it se…

I mean which current group is being persecuted, not past groups.
Post reply on HN