201–210 of 1001 posts
Google & YouTube employees on HN: how do you justify still working at this company? Enough of the cognitive dissonance. Face your choices and tell me how you square yourself with them. For shame.
Google is a pretty huge company. What if they're working on something unrelated - maybe even something that benefits the world?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They look at their bank accounts.
That doesn't justify their behavior - it condemns it.
I'm not saying I agree with the incentive structure but money is one of the core incentives in the US since it translates to other necessities and wants in life. Those working at dubious businesses are being highly incentivized to do so and at the same time, normalizing said behaviors.
Here's the kicker as well, as the clench on labor grows tighter with the middle class being squeezed more and more, people seem oblivious that even if you're getting paid relatively well (6 figures) and have options to jump ship, that may not always be the case when labor keeps caving (sometimes without option) into business incentive structures for compensation.
If there are plenty of people on the labor market capable of competing with you yet willing to do work you won't for money, you too will be displaced. Ultimately, the people dangling carrots in front of us win and we (those who rely on labor for income) lose.
Youtube is in a tough spot. They will be blamed: - if they don't take down speech some consider hateful - if they take down speech some do not consider hateful 共匪 is seen as an insult by a group, but others do not. If Youtube bans nothing, then hate speech thrives and they get bad PR. If Youtube bans anything anyone flags as hate speech, then they become de facto as censorship agents for foreign powers. Anything crit…
The solution is to realize "hate speech" is mostly subjective and revert back to the clear rules that we had last decade before the current political climate of gratuitous outrage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope your youtube account isn't linked to a gmail account you consider important.
This is the first time I am seriously considering leaving Gmail. Seems like a royal pain in the ass to switch though, since you don't "own" your email handle like you would a domain.
Youtube is in a tough spot. They will be blamed: - if they don't take down speech some consider hateful - if they take down speech some do not consider hateful 共匪 is seen as an insult by a group, but others do not. If Youtube bans nothing, then hate speech thrives and they get bad PR. If Youtube bans anything anyone flags as hate speech, then they become de facto as censorship agents for foreign powers. Anything crit…
All speech is free speech, even the parts I don't like - hate, lies, slander, and everything in between. That said, it's okay to regulate speech in some circumstances. You are legally obligated to tell the truth in court. It is rightfully illegal to lie about who you are in many scenarios.
YouTube is private property and Google has the legal right to censor whatever speech they want on it. I don't think we should regulate that. However, who and what they censor shows us who they consider to be most valuable on their platform.
Anyone who depends on YouTube should keep a close eye on Google's censorship patterns and constantly weigh their options. If you want to have any serious discussions about existing communist regimes, you'd be foolish to stay dependent on YouTube.
EDIT: If you can come up with a way to distinguish between hate speech and free speech that can't be easily abused, I'm all ears.
Is any anti-CCP content banned/blocked? epochtimes? falungong? ... it's all still there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've posted an AskHN about self-regulation mechanisms on HN just today and instantly got flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23220998 Please upvote another attempt: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223939
I remember seeing an exchange where a moderator seemed to be able to edit another person's comment well after the edit period with no indication an edit was made. Kind of hope I misunderstood the exchange, but if that's the case that instantly undermines any possible claim to being "ultimate place on the Web to discover and discuss bleeding-edge content" In general HN is not that place anyways. People here confuse me…
Similar happens with the name "Eric Ciaramella", which YouTube instantly deletes. This is a name of a CIA whistle blower. It would be interesting to know what other words are in the YouTube censor list.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was just about to post this: Communist bandit (Chinese: 共匪; pinyin: gòngfěi) is an anti-communist insult directed to the Chinese Communist Party. The term originated from the Nationalist Government in 1927. This is direct censorship on behalf of the Chinese Government.
It's an insult but also a historical fact. KMT was listed a observer party in COMINTERN and Chiang Kai Shek himself was nominated as president of COMINTERN China branch. So in a sense KMT was the real Communist deal and CCP was a copycat version. COMINTERN even ordered CCP to join force with KMT to form "united front", Mao himself was forced to join KMT. And it turned out to be a bloodshed purge by the KMT. Afterward…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. No Wikipedia articles on him either, and reports of people getting permanently banned from Wikipedia for trying to create that article, or even mentioning him in another.
Wow. It's almost like the missions of popular websites fall in line with protecting individuals against government-sponsored attacks on whistleblowers. Witness protection isn't some flashy thing in movies. It's real and society benefits from it.