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

161–170 of 187 posts

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

#161

Post by bobabooey02 »

yorwba wrote: post #158
bobabooey02 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If they do that, they might as well remove the videos, since they have the same goal in mind. Look at the quarantined subreddits on Reddit. While the company gets to say it allows free speech, it basically removed those subreddits from existence, thus successfully​ controlling the narrative. Do we really want large corporations to intentionally guide the direction of our culture? Personally, I don't. In the end, a corporation would guide it in a direction that favors itself and its donors.

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

#162

Post by CM30 »

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…

This makes me wonder whether it'd help if media sources would stop posting their names of the terrorists in their articles. Basically, don't profile them. Don't say where they came from or their personal situation. Don't interview their friends or family members.

Just call them 'evil monster' or something similarly vague and hope history forgets their existence. Otherwise, you end up with a lot of criminals and terrorists causing great amounts of suffering to have their names recorded in the history books.

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

#163

Post by rootsudo »

walshemj wrote: post #112
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.

Or more likely a minimum wage drone in a third world country

For example BPO for Google in Makati, Philippines through Skykes is an 25-30,000 PESO/month job for content moderator. $500-600.

And that's considered a good job if you're a filipino.

It's about half that in India.

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

#164

Post by skybrian »

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…

This is not really new. Looking for "biases" that give better search results is kind of the point; it goes back to PageRank. (A preference for more popular content is going to rank less popular content lower.) Similarly for many other search ranking signals.

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

#165

Post by forgottenpass »

yorwba wrote: post #158
bobabooey02 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wonder what effect Google's wagging finger and implied scolding from an interstitial will have on people who stumble across a video they like but is branded as naughty.

I find it an interesting question because:

A) Not every video branded as culturally unacceptable will be. Not every video is as bad as the worst-case hypothetical used to justify the content classification.

The landscape of cultural attitudes differ from California-based content minders. The categorization can be flat out wrong, there will undoubtedly be a small percentage of videos that even the minders see as mis-classified.

B) Social interventionist policies can - and often do - backfire.

e.g.: Teens that deliberately seek out taboo. The allure of R movies, M games, Explicit Lyrics, and underage binge drinking can cause them to live a period of their life less well-adjusted than if that content wasn't aggressively filtered from their lives in the first place.

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

#166

Post by coldtea »

rmah wrote: post #148
coldtea wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you call the local censor a "curator" too? Besides, my local librarian doesn't decide what books the library will have (what's this, USSR?). They do the initial ordering management, but library members can request any book and have it ordered. There's a mechanism for us curating our own content: we decide to which pages/friends we subscribe. How about that?

"Besides, my local librarian doesn't decide what books the library will have" Um, of course they do.

Well, most libraries where I live/know have central boards / panels that decide those things -- not necessarily staffed by professional librarians (e.g. the state appoints members there from the academic community, etc., some are voted, etc.). There are also deals to get copy(ies) from each published work (by specific or all publishers).

Librarians do handle the organization and everyday operation, archiving projects, curated collections open to the public, etc.

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

#167

Post by forgottenpass »

zamalek wrote: post #99
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…

That's why we classically had the Supreme Court to deal with this stuff. Sadly it do not scale.

This is not a question of scale, it's a question of kind.

SCOTUS decisions scale just fine. It's called "stare decisis."

This is simply a new censor with less permissive and less stringent standards.

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

#168

Post by forgottenpass »

Jarwain wrote: post #77
blfr wrote: post #41

I don't believe that there is a problem with terrorism online or that such a thing as online terror exists. Only the most feeble can be terrorised through the screen. The problem is that there are terrorists among us who are willing to bomb, stab, or run people down with a truck. That there are entire communities where this either receives support or is at least tolerated. It has very little to do with technology. Th…

I wouldn't say that it's about individuals being terrorized through the screen. I'd say that it's at-risk individuals who are persuaded to radicalize through the internet. By at-risk, I refer to individuals who may be suffering personal issues in their life, and are susceptible to the messaging used by terrorist recruiters.

If there is one thing at-risk people respond positively to, it's ham-fisted social intervention that DGAF about them and openly seeks to control their behavior.

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

#169

Post by nabla9 »

matt4077 wrote: post #95
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…

I don't agree that traditional media outlets "hype up the terror". If you compare the coverage of, for example, the recent attacks in London and the fire you're referring to, they seemed to get about equal billing. On the smaller scale, violence will get more prominent coverage, yes. But that's just a reflection of public interest, and how much intent makes a subjective difference. News outlets like the BBC or the Gu…

>seemed to get about equal billing.

Catastrophe porn sells in general, fires, plane accidents, natural disasters, etc. don't increase if the reporting increases.

Terrorism works trough media. Terrorism should get less media exposure and. Ongoing video feeds, constant speculation etc. should be treated as enemy propaganda even if it goes trough neutral channel.

If there is ongoing situation, short messages from the authorities are good. Deeper reporting at later time. TV-cameras on the scene and all the graphical drama building is working for the enemy.

> and in the case of the BBC, it's obviously wrong to suggest they're doing it for money, seeing as they're not financed by ads.

BBC and others are doing what others do and doing it for viewers. They honestly think that creating drama is being neutral. It's not.

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

#170

Post by bzbarsky »

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?

No, DuskStar is claiming that the people at Evergreen are leftist college students who did something stupid, and the thing they did makes leftists as a group look stupid. So other leftists are trying hard to hide the thing that was done, to avoid the PR fallout.

This was pretty clear in what DuskStar wrote. See the "the fact it was produced by leftists who need a far better grasp of optics" bit.

Post reply on HN