By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence • Hacker News Board

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#151

Post by baud147258 » Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 8:45 AM UTC

corodra wrote: post #62

corndoge wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, exact title searches will usually not turn up videos with that title unless you use quotes. YouTube will return clickbait and Jimmy Kimmel, entirely unrelated to the search, for exact title searches of videos with only a few tens of views.

Heaven forbid I ever accidentally click on or get interested in some random talk show video, video roughly about video games or a big media news video. All of my normal engineering, business, programming, guns, history, and mechanics recommendations go right the fuck out the window. For the next week, half my recommendations are just filled with dogshit because of one accidental video. I stopped watching movie traile…

On Desktop, you can avoid this issue by watching the video in a private browsing session. It doesn't work on mobile though.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#152

Post by squarefoot » Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 8:58 AM UTC

Which brings us to a couple good practices: never trust the cloud or any other online storage and always back up sensitive information offline, multiple times and in multiple places, before putting it online.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#153

Post by mmjaa » Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 9:13 AM UTC

mindgam3 wrote: post #81

least wrote: post #3

Youtube 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…

> Liveleak comes to mind as a service better suited for a public repository of this video. Liveleak, seriously? I'm not convinced that a site known for hosting gory and violent videos is really what these human rights activists are looking for. [Edit] Some context: https://www.businessinsider.com/profile-of-hayden-hewitt-fou...

Liveleak very knowingly remove any content that will embarrass the US' military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex, also.

So they're not really a great example.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#154

Post by netsharc » Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 9:28 AM UTC

LeftHandPath wrote: post #32

codingslave wrote: post #12

Not 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…

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…

Also, power users don't click on ads pretending to be search results...

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#155

Post by pif » Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 9:40 AM UTC

People should go back to understanding the difference between a public service (i.e. operated by the people for the sake of the people) and a private company (i.e. operated by some people for their sake).

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#156

Post by netsharc » Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 10:14 AM UTC

baud147258 wrote: post #151

corodra wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heaven forbid I ever accidentally click on or get interested in some random talk show video, video roughly about video games or a big media news video. All of my normal engineering, business, programming, guns, history, and mechanics recommendations go right the fuck out the window. For the next week, half my recommendations are just filled with dogshit because of one accidental video. I stopped watching movie traile…

On Desktop, you can avoid this issue by watching the video in a private browsing session. It doesn't work on mobile though.

On Android I use NewPipe, I can turn off the recommended videos, and even comments, for a more blissful YouTube experience.

Although one person did complain Google closed his account because he used that app: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21247759

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#157

Post by 1337biz » Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 10:19 AM UTC

dmix wrote: post #47

campfireveteran wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. You need something like Internet Archive or better that is archival quality, random internet vandalism-proof and FBI raid-proof.

Archive.is has constantly faced harassment from people filing DMCA claims and having domain names taken away for bullshit copyright claims. I'm sure if they started doing this the Twitter outrage warriors wouldn't be happy about it and add to the difficulty of their job.

>the Twitter outrage warriors

Somebody should classify this as an addictive behavior.

'The immanent urge to get emotionally excited by interacting with an equally excitable peer group on issues only remotely related to one's personal life'.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#158

Post by mkl » Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 10:38 AM UTC

rubatuga wrote: post #46

thaumasiotes wrote: post #34

Earlier 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'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…

You should use verbose mode

I think you mean "verbatim". It's silly for that to be necessary to get reasonable results, though - if verbatim mode works better then those should be the results returned in the first place.

I primarily use DDG, and in my experience when its results are bad, Google's usually are for that query too.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#159

Post by mkl » Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 10:39 AM UTC

frittig wrote: post #140

rubatuga wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should use verbose mode

are quotes around the search term not the command for verbose mode?

Not anymore. Google has a verbatim mode under Tools > All results.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#160

Post by corodra » Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 11:17 AM UTC

Simon_says wrote: post #148

neutronicus wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Book a honeymoon, constantly Google administrative marriage questions ... still get ads for engagement rings.

You never know. Maybe people who got married recently are more likely to get married again soon?

I'm curious what happens then if you ever have to plan a funeral. Which, yea I'm being morbid... but it would be pretty messed up to continue getting funeral related ads over time.