Earlier quoted context omitted.
Been wondering about this phenomenon for awhile. Spotify can delete music history. Youtube can delete video history. If it's on a streaming service it may as well not exist. We're at this strange point where convenience may as well be access, because the same service you used for discovery is the one for consumption. I don't know if this phenomenon has a name.
Likewise Amazon removing books from its site is much more effective than any book burning.
By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence
141–150 of 168 posts
Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
The number of times I've taken a google search that gave me useless results, copied-and-pasted it into duck-duck-go, and immediately found what I'm looking for, is astounding. I do think that they are starting to lose the power-user userbase when it comes to browsers and search engines. But their email, docs/sheets/whatever, drive, and now their DNS registrar services are all cemented into business flow. It makes sen…
> The number of times I've taken a google search that gave me useless results, copied-and-pasted it into duck-duck-go, and immediately found what I'm looking for, is astounding. I'll bet it's dwarfed by the number of times I get useful results from Google and total garbage from DDG. Earlier today I searched for "CADT syndrome" to figure out what another HN comment meant by it. Both engines automatically correct that…
Two, the others are referencing controversial opinion content in particular. They are saying that if the search is about something controversial or politically charged, the google result is noticeably lacking. This seems more concerning to many of us because this isn't just a newer search engine not quite up to par, this is the search engine purposefully pushing users into filter bubbles of Googles choosing!
I hope I cleared up the difference between what you are referring to and what the others are talking about. Anecdotally, I can confirm as a heavy youtube user (both web and youtube-dl/mps) that youtube search is also affected. Many searches for things that aren't even that "out there" return no results, even with the exact name of the video. If you don't have the actual link from somewhere else, you can't find it. I think what google is doing is dangerous and a very slippery slope. Many of my datahording friends have been on youtube downloading sprees because they are afraid google is about to memory hole important videos that don't exist anywhere else that is easily accessible.
ps. This is also the nice part of the bangs of ddg. Don't like the ddg results, just do it again with !gyear etc. (vs the google gui way, and I don't even know if googles daterange: operator even works anymore)
Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Likewise Amazon removing books from its site is much more effective than any book burning.
Fahrenheit 451, good movie about that. I just found out Amazon owns Goodreads. They also own IMDB.
Goodreads will list any book for the time being, even ones banned from Amazon. One example is The Culture of Critique - the link to Amazon goes to a broken page, but links to buy it from other vendors remain.
Link to the book - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/182136.The_Culture_of_Cr...
Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Been wondering about this phenomenon for awhile. Spotify can delete music history. Youtube can delete video history. If it's on a streaming service it may as well not exist. We're at this strange point where convenience may as well be access, because the same service you used for discovery is the one for consumption. I don't know if this phenomenon has a name.
Likewise Amazon removing books from its site is much more effective than any book burning.
Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence
#145Not only Youtube, I've noticed a huge disparity between Duck Duck Go results and Google results when writing queries that could be thought of as containing a controversial/politically/racially/etc charged topic. Youtube recommendations and search/ranking suppress searches as it is, even if they were to leave the content on there, most of it will never be surfaced through organic means without a direct link or a searc…
Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it well documented that the human moderators who do exist at places like facebook and youtube end up having their mental health screwed after they watch so much disturbing content? Just throwing human moderators at the problem probably has more cost than just the salaries involved.
How does 4chan do it? Last I checked they have moderators (well "janitors"). They are volunteers, work for almost no recognition (still Anon), and probably do not have the mental health problems that regular people do. There is also clearly an ability to follow direction or enforce appropriate (e.g. the janitors of /b/ /pol/ /g/ and /fit/ are clearly all operating on different sets of rules). I am 100% in agreement t…
Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence
#147Youtube and Facebook, while convenient, aren't really appropriate mediums for them to share this sort of footage. Liveleak comes to mind as a service better suited for a public repository of this video. Archival of footage shouldn't be dependent on a third party platform that can, at will, delete every single video on a whim. Likely for this sort of thing a diligent archivist will need to put in the effort of storing…
Been wondering about this phenomenon for awhile. Spotify can delete music history. Youtube can delete video history. If it's on a streaming service it may as well not exist. We're at this strange point where convenience may as well be access, because the same service you used for discovery is the one for consumption. I don't know if this phenomenon has a name.
Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
I somewhat do agree with the ad engine... but it's a crappy one. I'm a guy in my 30s. Nothing in my view history ever says, "Hey, this guy is progressive enough to wear makeup." At that, I watch english, polish, and french videos. Ads I get, Spanish. I dont know spanish. I'd accept general language learning ads. But tostitos and I think one was health or house insurance... in spanish. It's like the ad bot is some red…
Book a honeymoon, constantly Google administrative marriage questions ... still get ads for engagement rings.
Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence
#149Youtube and Facebook, while convenient, aren't really appropriate mediums for them to share this sort of footage. Liveleak comes to mind as a service better suited for a public repository of this video. Archival of footage shouldn't be dependent on a third party platform that can, at will, delete every single video on a whim. Likely for this sort of thing a diligent archivist will need to put in the effort of storing…
"You should not show identifiable people being beaten!"
That's true, because it could go one way or another depending on whether the revolution succeeds. If it does, though, it can help identify the perpetrators of brutality.
Publishing it is irresponsible, but destroying them is as well. This is potential criminal evidences.
Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine." To my understanding websites can chose to not be included in the Wayback Machine.
Not only that, if they are archived at one point and later decide to be excluded then all of the archives for that domain are deleted retroactively. This means that a valuable site can be archived for years but if the domain lapses and gets bought up by somebody who decides to exclude the Wayback Machine then all of that precious content is destroyed even though the destroyer never owned it! I feel like we’re in the…