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

Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 187 posts

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#101

Post by odiroot »

DuskStar wrote: post #18

"Third, we will be taking a tougher stance on videos that do not clearly violate our policies — for example, videos that contain inflammatory religious or supremacist content. In future these will appear behind an interstitial warning and they will not be monetised, recommended or eligible for comments or user endorsements. That means these videos will have less engagement and be harder to find. We think this strikes…

Aha, so big US companies are our police now.

I share your fear. The "kosher" content would be now defined by some faceless person in NY/SF.

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#102

Post by avip »

bandushrew wrote: post #73
avip wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's less "terrifying" than the current alternative, where people can openly support various forms of extreme violence, get away with it, and monetize on the way. Mind you this "internet" is private biz. This is a pretty obvious "don't vomit on my rug" case. Don't like it? Find another party.

I really don't care if people "support" various forms of extreme violence by watching youtube movies. That is WAY better than supporting it by committing various forms of extreme violence. Is there any actual evidence that these youtube videos are in fact driving people to commit acts of terrorism?

yes https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#103

Post by Angostura »

DuskStar wrote: post #38
xapata wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the status quo. One could argue nearly anything is political content, or art. They're announcing that they're going to draw the line differently, not that they're drawing a line for the first time.

There are Leftist movements in the US that are arguably just as violent as those on the alt-Right. What's the chance that these policies apply to both sides equally? Given the history, I'd say not much. And I don't think that's a good thing. EDIT: Unless someone is saying that AntiFa ISN'T violent?

> What's the chance that these policies apply to both sides equally?

I would say there's a very good chance that it will

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#104

Post by patrickg_zill »

DuskStar wrote: post #18

"Third, we will be taking a tougher stance on videos that do not clearly violate our policies — for example, videos that contain inflammatory religious or supremacist content. In future these will appear behind an interstitial warning and they will not be monetised, recommended or eligible for comments or user endorsements. That means these videos will have less engagement and be harder to find. We think this strikes…

Given that the costs will still be present but Google won't get any benefit for hosting these videos, how likely are they in the future to simply delete them?

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#105

Post by patrickg_zill »

DuskStar wrote: post #68
kjksf wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make up your mind. By your definition(s), YouTube can't possibly handle inflammatory leftist material. If they don't remove it, they're clearly leftist biased. If the do remove it, they're also clearly leftist biased, but for a different reason. You can't have it both ways.

IMO, the entire situation with Evergreen College is closer to being an alt-Right propaganda piece than a leftist one. Screaming at and demanding the resignation of a professor essentially for saying that "On a college campus, one's right to speak - or to be - must never be based on skin color" looks pretty bad, you know? The fact it was produced by leftists who need a far better grasp of optics really doesn't change…

Pardon me, but your view is ridiculous!

Or are you claiming that the people at Evergreen are all secret members of the Pepe Brotherhood and that they are not holding their leftist views honestly?

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#106

Post by omginternets »

Angostura wrote: post #103
DuskStar wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are Leftist movements in the US that are arguably just as violent as those on the alt-Right. What's the chance that these policies apply to both sides equally? Given the history, I'd say not much. And I don't think that's a good thing. EDIT: Unless someone is saying that AntiFa ISN'T violent?

> What's the chance that these policies apply to both sides equally? I would say there's a very good chance that it will

How do you figure?

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#107

Post by a_imho »

I'm rather skeptical when terrorism (or Lovejoy) is invoked as a reason for more censorship, hope it turns out well this time.

we are working with Jigsaw to implement the “Redirect Method” more broadly across Europe. This promising approach harnesses the power of targeted online advertising to reach potential Isis recruits,

It is not really clear why is Europe specifically targeted.

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#108

Post by patrickg_zill »

bhami wrote: post #84

Let's see, this is the same Google/ YouTube that marks dozens of PragerU videos as "restricted", despite three Wall Street Journal editorials protesting that. The same YouTube that has been demonetizing Paul Joseph Watson, Alex Jones, and other conservatives. In summary, Google has long proven that they have an unapologetic Leftist agenda.

Remember that in the last election, virtually zero newspaper, magazine (eg The Atlantic) or any other media outlet endorsed Trump in their editorials.

And yet these same organizations assure us they will have clearly defined and wholly impartial standards.

Uh huh...

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#109

Post by Vinnl »

nabla9 wrote: post #29

In the west terrorism works trough media exposure. Fighting it in media is good strategy. Violence itself is ridiculously low volume per capita. If traditional media would step in, it would be major win. Instead of having symbiotic relationship with terrorism, where they hype up the terror, they could stick to reporting the facts and situation and not providing non-stop terror-porn entertainment to audience. Once peo…

Or terrorists (for whatever definition of terrorist) feel they need to "step up their game". I'm already afraid for whatever gruesome thing ISIS is going to think up of next now that carving off someone's head is not considered gruesome enough for immediate media coverage anymore...

Re: Four steps we’re taking today to fight online terror

#110

Post by dropit_sphere »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #105
DuskStar wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, the entire situation with Evergreen College is closer to being an alt-Right propaganda piece than a leftist one. Screaming at and demanding the resignation of a professor essentially for saying that "On a college campus, one's right to speak - or to be - must never be based on skin color" looks pretty bad, you know? The fact it was produced by leftists who need a far better grasp of optics really doesn't change…

Pardon me, but your view is ridiculous! Or are you claiming that the people at Evergreen are all secret members of the Pepe Brotherhood and that they are not holding their leftist views honestly?

What part of his view seems ridiculous to you?
Post reply on HN