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

YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

middleeasteye.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 334 posts

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#171

Post by dom0 »

geocar wrote: post #153
hossbeast wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is a company. You want video hosting to be run by the government?

Yes. An alternative is to classify Google as a common carrier, exempting them from the DMCA, but preventing them from censoring or even throttling traffic, however given their business model is around sponsorship, it is unclear how to also protect the advertisers' interests. Trying to get government shackles onto Google simply seems too tricky; It seems much easier to simply run Google with tax dollars and no adverti…

Google and Facebook are bigger than a single country now.

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#172

Post by crusso »

anigbrowl wrote: post #113
crusso wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Appealing to government authority every time some business does something you don't like should make your list of "so flawed" solutions. 1. No one said it was, but it's their business. We live in a society that allows you to start up your own business in days if you don't like the offering of another private business. Giving up immediately and suggesting that the wielder of force in the society (government) jump in a…

Proposing a legal change isn't appealing to government authority. It's asserting that we should formalize a social attitude into a rule. Complaining about government as paternalistic intervenor ignores the right of people to shape government to work on their behalf, which is the reason they are instituted to begin with. So what that society 'allows' you to start up your own business? The economic and logistical barri…

Complaining about government as paternalistic intervenor ignores the right of people to shape government to work on their behalf, which is the reason they are instituted to begin with.

Anigbrowl, I'm sure you and I are just going to have to disagree on that one.

The purpose of the federal government in the USA is to execute its duties in the Constitution within its enumerated powers agreed to by the States that ratified it, along with the amendments that have been agreed upon since. Ultimately, the Constitution was constructed in such a way as to protect individual liberty while minimizing the chance that the government would become too powerful. Mechanisms such as the checks and balances and enumerated government powers were put in there explicitly to constrain those in government and prevent them from thinking that they could shape the government however they wanted without fundamentally altering the Constitution through new amendments.

Treating the government like it's a parent there to fix all problems for the children has led to failed state after failed state as leaders assume more and more power over their people. Venezuela is the latest in a long line of where the paternalistic intervenor view of government leads. It's a shame that societies never seem to learn that lesson. My FB feed is full of my more left-leaning friends' laments of how Trump is in control of the American government. But the left still doesn't seem to grasp the fact that Trump isn't as bad as it can get - assuming he doesn't do something that makes things even worse. Keep increasing the power of government and a future incarnation of Trump will really terrify you.

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#173

Post by icebraining »

crusso wrote: post #160
icebraining wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eric Schmidt disagrees with you: "In general, I think our mission is to use technology to really change the world for the better." But anyway, you keep trying to argue with me, while I'm only making the point that you should understand the argument. I'm not sure if you're unwilling to try, but in any case I'm not interested. I actually sympathize with the position that we shouldn't have laws requiring Google to host…

xx

It's not ad hominem because I'm not trying to rebut your argument. In fact, I'm explicitly saying I'm not engaging with the argument you keep making. Your post just underlines that you're not actually listening to the people you're talking to.

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#174

Post by avip »

Alex3917 wrote: post #28

Since my understanding is that covering up a war crime is itself a war crime under Complicity doctrine, could Google executives get charged for this in The Hague?

I urge you to report this inhumane case and follow-up with a "show HN" (I filed an ICC case, then THIS happened).

   otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#176

Post by ScottBurson »

Retra wrote: post #71
cvsh wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst part of the information age is arbitration by unreasonable and impenetrable algorithms rather than humans with the capacity to make a judgement call when the rules clearly don't account for the situation at hand. A transparent appeals process staffed by humans who can at least deliver a rationale, including what rule you broke, should be required by law. There's irreparable reputational damage associated wi…

That's not the worst part at all! Anyone could file a complaint about a mistaken algorithm; the companies are run by people, and they'll have to address their customers' concerns. The worst part is that humans use these algorithms to justify and enforce their own shitty decisions; to say it is "out of their hands" due to some inane, manufactured inconvenience. >There's irreparable reputational damage associated with…

I think they were talking about the content producer's reputation.

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#177

Post by alexandercrohde »

To me, if you want to regulate controversial opinions, you have to err strongly to the side of too-open.

Remember, before the declaration of independence our founding fathers were terrorists/rebels. I don't mean this as a snappy hollow comparison. I'm saying fundamentally, you can't distinguish between a US soldier recruitment video and an ISIS soldier recruitment video without applying a moral context. How would an AI ever do this? And even if it could, who's moral retelling is the right one?

Better in my mind to stay out of the censorship game altogether and promote a forum that is inherently structure in a format that incentivizes accuracy over emotions.

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#178

Post by the8472 »

stephen82 wrote: post #163
the8472 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the only solution is a distributed and decentralized web. Distributed hosting of static content is a sorta-solved problem. But curating, linking and discoverability (which require mutating content) is a lot harder due to the trust anchor problem.

Your suggestion exists and has a name: bitchute. I will paste here what they have for "About" at the end of their main page: BitChute is a peer to peer content sharing platform. Our mission is to put people and free speech first. It is free to join, create and upload your own content to share with others. Feel free to read more about it in their FAQ. I really want to stop using YouTube and use this instead. I hope th…

Webtorrent does not meet the distributed requirement since webrtc needs signalling servers.

Plus the discovery component is still hosted on websites subject to the networking effect.

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#179

Post by koide »

CaptSpify wrote: post #150
jptman wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are underestimating the amount of video that gets uploaded to Youtube. Smaller sites may be better at stuff like this but that's solely because they don't have quite the amount of content. Hundreds of hours of videos are uploaded per minute. They may eventually have AI good enough to do a better job, but this is an unprecedented amount of content to review.

So? If youtube can't handle the load, then they shouldn't claim that they can. At the absolute lest, they need a usable appeals process. If they can't do that, then they need to own up to it, and stop allowing anyone to upload anything.

Sorry, but why? Google owns nobody anything. If you have war crime evidence or other important content to publish, upload it to YouTube and all other video sites, letting archive.org and other human rights organizations in the loop. You can put the press in the mix as well.

Re: YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist material'

#180

Post by briandear »

cloakandswagger wrote: post #162
hossbeast wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is a company. You want video hosting to be run by the government?

-The services provided by Google and Facebook have an unassailable majority of market share and are relied on by a huge amount of people. -They enjoy a de facto monopoly and are protected by the extreme cost, risk and time involved in building competing services. -Finally, they have a potential for abuse (say, with selective censorship or politically biased algorithms) that could essentially curb the Constitutional r…

Trusting government to regulate Facebook? No way. I lived in China; I have seen how that story plays out.

Some people really do have a naïve trust in government. Free markets are the answer. Who has actually made a legitimate attempt to compete with Google or Facebook? What VCs are investing in Facebook alternatives?

MySpace was unstoppable – until it wasn’t. Yahoo owned search – until it didn’t. Perhaps there ought to be more bold entrepreneurship rather than calls for regulation.

Sounds to me that people are ok with just giving up and giving Facebook the win.

Don’t like Facebook’s dominance? Then challenge it. Don’t cop out and just let the government take control.

History is littered with great companies toppled by better ideas and execution.

Post reply on HN