YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#231

Post by nebula8804 » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 1:58 AM UTC

throw_nbvc1234 wrote: post #100

jorgesborges wrote: post #22

I’m becoming more convinced that the future I’ve been planning simply won’t be possible in the decades to come. The world is scarcely recognizable. And having experienced nothing but peace and prosperity makes me feel woefully unprepared. The WEIRD world is becoming increasingly more authoritarian. I’m already detached from real conflict and scarcity, knowing nothing but peace and prosperity, and the TikTok generatio…

Just wait until GPT3 deep-fake audio. Closely followed by Deep-fake video. And algorithms will amplify this content to the echo chambers that "want" to hear it to increase ad revenue a few percentage points. All this will enter society at a time when trust in institutions is already low; you already hear some people predicting that there may not be an election with uncontested results (in the USA) ever again. If we s…

I hear that cameras that sign video files are coming. It sucks that we have reached this point but it seems like some mitigations against deep fakes will appear.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#232

Post by couchand » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 1:58 AM UTC

airstrike wrote: post #202

majormajor wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is sadly more complicated than that. Often people's principles contradict each other, especially when it comes to bad actors. Consider the person with a principle of non-violence who is still willing to fight to defend their family. Are they a hypocrite?

"Defending" assumes an attacker, which is the one breaking the principle of non-violence. So no, you're not a hypocrite to defend yourself if you believe in non-violence Said differently, the belief in non-violence can be stated as "I believe in pursuing non-violent means in absolutely every situation except for those in which another actor acts violently toward me"

The GP's point about internal contradiction remains regardless of the contortions you choose to apply to your definition of "non-violence".

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#233

Post by astonex » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 2:00 AM UTC

jorgesborges wrote: post #22

I’m becoming more convinced that the future I’ve been planning simply won’t be possible in the decades to come. The world is scarcely recognizable. And having experienced nothing but peace and prosperity makes me feel woefully unprepared. The WEIRD world is becoming increasingly more authoritarian. I’m already detached from real conflict and scarcity, knowing nothing but peace and prosperity, and the TikTok generatio…

It's all because of ads. Everything is done in the name of getting more advertisers, and more ad-clicks. So everything must be sanitised, and strictly regulated lest you upset the advertisers

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#234

Post by sirspacey » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 2:01 AM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #32

freedomben wrote: post #7

One of the hosts wrote this about it [1]: particularly appropriate quote: > What casual observers might not understand, however, is just how far the policy goes. Not only does YouTube punish channels that spread misinformation, but in many cases, it also punishes channels that report on the spread of misinformation. The platform makes no distinction between the speaker and the content creator. If a channel produces a…

This makes sense. The use-mention distinction does not exist in common parlance. For instance if I were to say “The n-word is reprehensible” this is acceptable but if I were to use the alternative signifier for the same referent, I would likely be banned. If not here, then in most places. With this shift in society, it makes sense for our AI banning tools to also conflate use/mention. It is less a programmatic proble…

I like this axiom and how it maps to the behavior of information sharing and its potential impact.

A disclaimer is a way to demonstrate transparently that a reasonable consideration was made before magnifying false claims.

There may be better ways, but it at least accounts for the cost of signal amplification in some way.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#235

Post by virgildotcodes » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 2:01 AM UTC

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #217

cryptonector wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it's instructions on drinking bleach, why censor it? Not comparable.

> > If it's instructions on drinking bleach, why censor it? >Not comparable. Nor did it ever actually happen. https://www.dailywire.com/news/fact-check-no-trump-did-not-t... https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/11/joe-biden/... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/202... Not anywhere will you find Trump saying to “inject bleach”. That was the media narrative, completely their words.

> And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning?

Seems to me like he is very clearly talking about the viability of injecting disinfectant.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#236

Post by prepend » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 2:01 AM UTC

jmull wrote: post #220

dayvid wrote: post #127

It's scary how many of the systems we were worried about in China (e.g. social credit system, censorship, etc.) are basically being created now in the west through the proxy of critical companies blocking access and/or working together.

I don’t get why people think youtube should be forced to host stuff they don’t want to host. Youtube should be socialized and forced to become a content-neutral storage? But why?!? We have the internet, where you can rent or run your own server and storage and post your conspiracy theory videos.

Why should broadcasters be forced to host debates?

Broadcasters are forced to do all kinds of stuff. In Canada they have to carry a certain percentage of Canadian content.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#237

Post by EMM_386 » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 2:03 AM UTC

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #221

Whose fault is this? Are you all still using YouTube? Propping up the U.S. Corpocracy by watching kittens and puppies? Or are you a blogger and making bank yourself by talking about technology or cooking? This authoritarianism is powered by the people, not by direct Government action. What should you be fighting for? Making these platforms public utilities so using them would confirm protection of the 1st amendment.

> Are you all still using YouTube? Propping up the U.S. Corpocracy by watching kittens and puppies?

I'm a cord-cutter and yes, I use YouTube constantly.

It obviously has a lot more than kitten an puppy videos, it's not that cut and dry.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#238

Post by rmccue » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 2:05 AM UTC

jmull wrote: post #220

dayvid wrote: post #127

It's scary how many of the systems we were worried about in China (e.g. social credit system, censorship, etc.) are basically being created now in the west through the proxy of critical companies blocking access and/or working together.

I don’t get why people think youtube should be forced to host stuff they don’t want to host. Youtube should be socialized and forced to become a content-neutral storage? But why?!? We have the internet, where you can rent or run your own server and storage and post your conspiracy theory videos.

Aside from whether that’s happening here, there’s an argument to be made that an equivalent of common carrier laws make sense for the largest platforms. With the centralisation of attention onto those platforms, deplatforming effectively lets them act as a law unto themselves, and I think there’s a fair argument that in exchange for their outsized impact on society, those platforms have obligations to it as well.

(I don’t necessarily think it’d be the best idea for the most part though.)

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#239

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 2:05 AM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #199

aiisjustanif wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Fiona Hill that is not the definition of a world war. World Wars have been defined by battles in multiples countries and continents. The Syrian civil war was over 15 countries and factions. War in Afghanistan over 5 countries, technically much more. None of these wars were consider WW3, and just because the war between Ukraine and Russia is in Europe doesn’t make it any different.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#240

Post by user3939382 » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 2:05 AM UTC

jmull wrote: post #220

dayvid wrote: post #127

It's scary how many of the systems we were worried about in China (e.g. social credit system, censorship, etc.) are basically being created now in the west through the proxy of critical companies blocking access and/or working together.

I don’t get why people think youtube should be forced to host stuff they don’t want to host. Youtube should be socialized and forced to become a content-neutral storage? But why?!? We have the internet, where you can rent or run your own server and storage and post your conspiracy theory videos.

> why people think youtube should be forced to host stuff they don’t want to host

For the same reasons that AT&T can't terminate your phone service if they hear you talking about something that's opposed to the political preferences of AT&T or its leadership. These companies have become the public square and the law needs to be updated to reflect that. If they have to become public utilities fine.

There's a big difference between a small company being coerced by the government into some action, versus the same action on a very small handful of multi-billion dollar companies that have a collective monopoly on our entire public and political discourse.

What's really bizarre is how the left is supposed to be opposed to, e.g. Citizens United, and the establishment neoliberal take is ultra-pro corporate rights and autonomy and 0 government intervention. IMHO thinking a few companies should be free to make a cooperative agreement and shut whoever they want out of communicating on these popular platforms is a radical right-wing position.