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

151–160 of 187 posts

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

#151

Post by nokcha »

3pt14159 wrote: post #130
odiroot wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They aren't installing a filter into the browser they're OPENLY addressing a problematic issue on YouTube, one of many, many video hosting websites. Nothing stops a terrorist from getting a computer, an internet connection, and hosting his own damn video calling for the murder of women and children. When you call for violence against non-combatants you're breaking the law in every single western country. If there wer…

>When you call for violence against non-combatants you're breaking the law in every single western country.

That's not entirely true. Abstract advocacy of illegal violence is protected speech under Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). Only when the incited violence is imminent (as opposed to at some indefinite future time) does the speech fall outside the bounds of the First Amendment.

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

#152

Post by mistermann »

tyingq wrote: post #70
Retra wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflammatory: (especially of speech or writing) arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings. Religious speech is not inflammatory just because some people strongly disagree with it.

Yes, but something that sounds innocuous to members of one religion can be inflammatory to another. I didn't say all religious speech was inflammatory either. I said most religions have some speech that could be considered so. I really don't get your point.

There are also a lot of political views that would have been considered completely mainstream 5 or 10 years ago that now seem to be considered inflammatory, one example being open borders.

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

#153

Post by jjoonathan »

wowSuchTerror wrote: post #52

to fight online terror 1. identify extremist and terrorism-related videos 2. increase the number of independent experts 3. a tougher stance on videos 4. expand its role in counter-radicalisation efforts But I'm not terrified by things that happen online. Least of all videos of events in the past. And, to be honest, I've seen plenty of NSFW videos. Let's not kid ourselves. Terrorism has pretty much nothing to do with…

Yes, but that's a less useful story for the people and organizations built on gathering ever more power, so the alternative will be repeated until it sticks. Given the number of people in this thread who take the official narrative at face value, it looks like it's working.

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

#156

Post by BearGoesChirp »

freshhawk wrote: post #125
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?

So far, no they aren't. Not even close. Not that there isn't any violence from the left, but not nearly as much. But using the left/right simplified political spectrum is a terrible metric in any case. If there was ever a time to at least use the compass metric to differentiate between authoritarian/libertarian opinions as well as left/right it is now. It can be hard to realize as an American but judged globally you…

>So far, no they aren't. Not even close. Not that there isn't any violence from the left, but not nearly as much.

This is based on information that is highly controlled by the companies which we were just discussing, right?

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

#157

Post by BearGoesChirp »

jscott0918 wrote: post #17

This is a terrifying step for the internet. These kinds of step lay the groundwork for censorship but fail to consider the impact of these changes in the event that the bad guys come into power or gain influence of these management systems.

We already have the groundwork. Obscene images are illegal, and morally I've yet to see a justification for why (justification for some cases, but most cases I've yet to see a good justification that is consistently applied in other area). Government should just declare any extremist material as obscene and ban it under the existing framework.

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

#158

Post by yorwba »

bobabooey02 wrote: post #131
3pt14159 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't installing a filter into the browser they're OPENLY addressing a problematic issue on YouTube, one of many, many video hosting websites. Nothing stops a terrorist from getting a computer, an internet connection, and hosting his own damn video calling for the murder of women and children. When you call for violence against non-combatants you're breaking the law in every single western country. If there wer…

They didn't say they were going to start removing videos with illegal content, they already do that. They said that they were going to start removing videos that don't break any rules, yet the company deems them unsavory. Which is incredibly frustrating since 1) YT has become the center of our changing culture, and 2) not everyone lines up with the PC Californian culture that dominates large multinational corporation…

They didn't say they would remove the videos, instead they will display an "interstitial warning and they will not be monetised, recommended or eligible for comments or user endorsements." Which is not even on the level of a shadow ban, as practiced e.g. on HN.

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

#159

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

hueving wrote: post #132
3pt14159 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't installing a filter into the browser they're OPENLY addressing a problematic issue on YouTube, one of many, many video hosting websites. Nothing stops a terrorist from getting a computer, an internet connection, and hosting his own damn video calling for the murder of women and children. When you call for violence against non-combatants you're breaking the law in every single western country. If there wer…

Murder sure; however, it said this: >videos that contain inflammatory religious or supremacist content It's very easy to claim content is inflammatory or supremacist . This will be highly subjective, which is the problem. I personally know people here in the bay area that would have no problem labelling lots of campaign talk by Trump with those tags.

> This will be highly subjective, which is the problem

also they have to determine these norms for the whole planet (without North Korea), now every attempt so far that tried to set cultural norms for the whole world has failed, lets see if they do better.

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

#160

Post by camus2 »

That's an excellent news. I was absolutely disgusted by the amount of pro Daesh content on Youtube 2/3 years ago where you could see their videos that became famous for their high production value. Youtube absolutely contributed the spread of fundamentalism no question. And there are still a bunch of hateful Nasheed easily accessible but Youtube is still not removing them because "it's music" ? outrageous ...
Post reply on HN