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

YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 744 posts

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#191

Post by munk-a »

Nasrudith wrote: post #177
yoodenvranx wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm starting to think that comment sections on news sites are a really bad idea I have no idea how it is in other countries but in Germany the comment sections in every single newspaper is _horrible_, especially when it is articles about refugees, climate change and similar topics.

That is sadly the way anywhere mainstream without heavy moderation. The scary thing about Youtube comments isn't that they are extra stupid because they aren't - they are the norm and essentially what happens when a representative sample of the population is available.

Just because the majority of the population has the ability to comment doesn't mean the majority participates. Voluntary participation like that tends to attract people with strong opinions on the position under debate - especially people who disagree with the position upheld by the article and especially people who feel like theirs is the minority opinion.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#192

Post by stcredzero »

anigbrowl wrote: post #155
stcredzero wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have to tolerate speech from people who threaten my life or community. And I don't mean 'threaten' in the sense of holding an opinion I find disagreeable Then you should understand that when "threatening speech" is used to censor people on false pretexts, then this dilutes reasonable concerns about threatening speech. If one is really concerned about truly threatening speech, one should be actively calling ou…

when the pretext of "threatening speech" is used to censor people on false pretexts Sounds circular but you do you.

False pretexts are a subset of pretexts. It's only circular if you are not precise with the logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection,_injection_and_surje...

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#194

Post by gaogao »

chrisjc wrote: post #149
vowelless wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

White supremacy was the cause for the worst wars of the 20th century. A white nationalist uprising in Europe would be deadlier (again) than Islamic extremists taking over most middle eastern nations due to the resources that will be available to them.

> White supremacy was the cause for the worst wars of the 20th century Again, I think that statement is shaped by your perspective. I imagine a lot of Russian, Chinese and Africans would disagree with you about that.

If you recognize that racial supremacy goes hand-in-hand with the imperialistic expansionism of Nazi Germany and Japan, I think it's fairly apt descriptor of one of the major causes of the war.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#195

Post by praptak »

"They came for the Nazis and I protested. Then they came for me and it was the Nazis."

Tolerating extreme views is okay as the price for freedom of speech. It does not mean large platforms are obligated to give them megaphones. Some kinds of speech do cause harm far beyond someone getting angry at someone else's views.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#196

Post by cwperkins »

I applaud any effort towards deradicalisation, but we need to work towards transparency. My gut reaction to the college board instituting an adversity score, was that it would’ve disproportionately impacted a guy like me growing up, but I’ve since come to realize that I’d prefer one entity with a transparent methodology tackling the problems instead of each institution, like Harvard, having an opaque system of their own.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#197

Post by Romanulus »

chrisjc wrote: post #118
vowelless wrote: post #91

Good. Online radicalism is a thing. To all the people here who are decrying this as “censorship”, remember that during the early 2010s, Islamic radicals were getting radicalized on YouTube by pretty benign sermons (Ex: Awlaki and his “tour of Paradise” lectures that inspired Boston 2013, fort hood and a bunch of other international attacks). YouTube removed all that out and I think Muslims getting radicalized on YouT…

> White supremacy is a much bigger deal with a worse tail risk than Islamic extremism. Wait... you're saying that white supremacy is worse than islamic extremism? Is you opinion perhaps a manifestation of your perspective? I'm sure there are some people in Syria, Afghanistan, etc... that would disagree with you. BTW, I'm not saying one is worse than the other, just that they are both bad, both a problem, and both sho…

I'd be willing to say Islamic extremism is worse than white supremacy.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#198

Post by Nasrudith »

skrowl wrote: post #163
javagram wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, this would be a major shift in the law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communica... > The court upheld AOL's immunity from liability for defamation. AOL's agreement with the contractor allowing AOL to modify or remove such content did not make AOL the "information content provider" because the content was created by an independent contractor. The Court noted that Congress made a policy choic…

No it's not, if Facebook / Youtube / etc are found to be PUBLISHERS. AOL in the case you mentioned was being looked at as an open / neutral platform. I'm saying that clearly Facebook / Youtube no longer fit that definition due to the censorship mentioned in OP.

The whole point of the law was to allow the websites an option between "total prevetted lockdown" and "spam and gross out filled anarchy because anything not forbidden by law is permitted". It may have been for prudish intentions but there is a reason that was the only section of the CDA to survive.

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#199

Post by skrowl »

javagram wrote: post #175
skrowl wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not, if Facebook / Youtube / etc are found to be PUBLISHERS. AOL in the case you mentioned was being looked at as an open / neutral platform. I'm saying that clearly Facebook / Youtube no longer fit that definition due to the censorship mentioned in OP.

The law is specifically written for that case, as noted in my excerpt. AOL had a contract allowing them to censor their contractor’s work, did not censor it (although they did moderate and censor various content on their service), and was still held immune from liability. The CDA basically grants publishers the ability to have their cake and eat it too, so you’d need to change the law.

I hope your views are never found to be 'extreme' and you're deplatformed due to it

Re: YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views

#200

Post by Retra »

HBKXNCUO wrote: post #143
Krasnol wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No wonder people are throwing around "censorship" when they don't understand the difference between a public space and a private homepage....

We didn't decide to guarantee free speech in "public spaces" for funsies. We did it because guaranteeing people the ability to meaningfully participate in the public political debate is a preventative measure against real world violence. If people cannot peacefully advocate for their interests, they are going to do so violently. The fact of the matter is that places like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are where a sub…

If their interests are to advocate for violence, why would you expect their ability to advocate in public to lead to peace?
Post reply on HN