171–180 of 337 posts
It's almost like they give more of a shit about people posting things on the internet than some looney slaughtering 51 people.
That looney was radicalised on the Internet, by a subset of Internet culture.
I would be interested to know what the technical difficulties are in scrubbing a banned video, and all derivatives, from a Facebook. Are there practical AI/video analysis techniques to detect that a video contains a fragment of another video? Surely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your bad idea is better than doing nothing and nobody can come up with something better, you could do it. The problem is youtubes recommendation algorithm, which rides users ever deeper into weirder and more outrageous videos, if they are susceptible to it. It's a bit like balancing on a knifes edge, and that very system feeds directly into those generating revenue from it. It is a system that rewards cheap outrag…
> If your bad idea is better than doing nothing and nobody can come up with something better, you could do it. Where is the evidence that this is better than the status quo?
Isn't this the way the US government treats islamist terrorist propaganda too? I am not sure why we should treat rightwing terrorists different. Both are inhumane, cruel and undemocratic ideologies, that would end free speech as soon as they get in power.
Note that this is meant to target right wing extremism, not right wing ideas per se. I am all open for discussion, but when people start promoting violence, genocide and hate, maybe a society is better off not protecting them unconditionally.
Free speech is also a cultural issue, e.g. in Europe you could shock some people with explicit violence, while nobody cares about exposed female nipples. In the US it is exactly the other way round – they are extremely open to violence, while in other areas free speech doesn't seem to count as much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
It's easier to claim that the US is an absolute bastion of free speech when you can conveniently hand wave all of the instances where it is not. Especially when it never actually affects you. It came to absolutely no surprise when i saw almost zero reaction from the 'free speech' crowd when a woman was prosecuted for laughing at Sessions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All Western countries have governments and are states based on the rule of law, and all place some limits on speech and expression. Even the US doesn't allow certain forms of expression, such as libel, slander, falsehoods, terroristic threats, etc. The West has therefore never supported free expression, just as it has never supported free markets. We are already on, and have always been on, that slope. Yet not all We…
Ah, the "cant happen here" argument.
Not all forms of this look like China, some look like the USA circa 1990.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Historically, a combined effort by corporate and government interests to take away your rights was called fascism. But I guess if it is the far left doing it, it's okay.
Who is far left in this? Jacinda Ardern represents a centre-left coalition government.
Everyone decried censorship, but always fails to provide an alternative to try and stop extremism online.
What kind of alternative would you like to see? How do you propose to evaluate if it's preferable to censorship?
Better than censorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that advertisers are not interested in sponsoring extremist content, so you could argue the incentives go in the other direction.
YouTube permits a lot of demonetized videos they don't dare to sell advertising on, or (previously) that YouTubers wouldn't give permission to sell advertising on, because the alternative of erasing the videos would send the YouTubers and their viewers to DailyMotion or Vimeo. As long as the demonetized viewers occasionally watch a non-demonetized video, or the sometimes-demonetized YouTubers occasionally make non-de…
I don't think incentives are enough to predict what YouTube will do. The future is uncertain, there are a lot of policies that could plausibly make money, and the decision-makers are people who read the news and have opinions about what's right, not paperclip maximizers. Politics matters as well as economics.
It's almost like they give more of a shit about people posting things on the internet than some looney slaughtering 51 people.
His efforts to use the web as a platform for inciting hate and further violence led to our government's response. If the US President incites hate and violence via Twitter we would be having the same discussion no?