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

251–260 of 334 posts

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

#251

Post by LoSboccacc »

013a wrote: post #35

YouTube is balking at their own size. They're discovering what should have been obvious to anyone; the sheer amount of content entering their centralized system is impossible to moderate in any fair way. The only way they can manage is (A) prioritize quality moderation toward channels which are more popular, and (B) enforce the most bland, vanilla experience possible. They need to moderate because they are centralize…

They need to metamoderate: let people tag video by content (nudity, violence, crime, death...) and as soon a video missing a tag gets flagged close the channel.

User that enable viewing of certain tags csn't complain then, and google only needs to put enough legalese when enabling comtent

They already doing that to an extent with mature content, so there's that

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

#252

Post by LoSboccacc »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #177

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…

>US soldier recruitment video and an ISIS soldier recruitment video

Somehow I doubt US recruitment videos have englishmen being decapitated as job perk

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

#254

Post by Too »

osteele wrote: post #79
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #8

It was folly to think that YouTube would be a safe place to document war crimes. YouTube is a distribution channel, not a preservation channel. Its ease of use certainly makes it an attractive option to upload things quickly, but anything of historical significance should have the video raws immediately turned over to a human rights organization for preservation.

One issue with YouTube is archival status. Another is provenance. At some point it will be as easy to create fake videos as to create fake text. It is unrealistic to expect people who aren't information literate about text will be literate about video, but I hope that there's a way for journalists to move away from YouTube by then.

This is already happening.

I was googling for baking videos the other day, when all of the sudden most of the hits I got was auto generated videos uploaded on youtube. They just had some panning stock photos in the background with text scrolling on top and super generic music, must be really simple to generate.

There were hundreds, maybe even thousands, of them from various accounts, all conveniently linked to each other making more of them appear as relevant in the rightmost column.

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

#256

Post by vidarh »

mirimir wrote: post #243
vidarh wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem on these distributed platforms is not filtering what people see , but filtering what people host or allow to transit their network connections. > In a decentralized system you also skip the law requirements since you cannot enforce multiple incompatible jurisdictions at the platform level, individual users will be responsible for enforcing it on their own nodes, similar how all you can do when accidentall…

> But that's the thing: You don't skip it. You spread it to every user. They both have to deal with whether or not they are willing to host the material and whether or not it is even legal for them. > How many of us sympathise with the idea of running a Tor exit node, for example, but avoid it because we're worried about the consequences? Tor isn't the best example, because exits don't cache anything. So mainly, exit…

It doesn't matter if operators get prosecuted or not. What matters if is people in general see running exit nodes as somewhat risky. Unless there is a reasonable perceived payoff, even a very minor perceived cost will be enough to stunt the growth of such a network severely.

Same goes for freenet and the like.

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

#257

Post by gaius »

Buge wrote: post #236
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…

These takedowns were done by humans. The videos were flagged by AI for human review.

The videos were flagged by AI for human review

The training parameters of that "AI" were set by a human too. Someone said to it "here are a bunch of videos that I PERSONALLY THINK are to be banned, learn from that".

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

#259

Post by mirimir »

vidarh wrote: post #256
mirimir wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But that's the thing: You don't skip it. You spread it to every user. They both have to deal with whether or not they are willing to host the material and whether or not it is even legal for them. > How many of us sympathise with the idea of running a Tor exit node, for example, but avoid it because we're worried about the consequences? Tor isn't the best example, because exits don't cache anything. So mainly, exit…

It doesn't matter if operators get prosecuted or not. What matters if is people in general see running exit nodes as somewhat risky. Unless there is a reasonable perceived payoff, even a very minor perceived cost will be enough to stunt the growth of such a network severely. Same goes for freenet and the like.

True. I don't run Tor exits from home.

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

#260

Post by PeanutCurry »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #219
thaumasiotes wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's naive to think that any one form of human organization, be it governmental or corporate, is somehow less corruptible than another. You don't think any organizations have ever been any more corruptible than any other organizations?

Not once they reach a certain size, no. It turns into a pointless exercise in moral relativism. Joe brings up the Soviets, Jane counters with the East India Company. Bob rants about Trump, Betsy pulls up the Wikipedia article on Union Carbide. Sally complains about police brutality, Sam lectures her on the history of the Pinkerton Agency. Hank sticks up for the UAW, Mary criticizes the Teamsters. None of these organi…

All of these organizations operated at their zeniths during different time periods, governments, cultural norms, and a variety of other factors. The problem with the conversation you're describing isn't moral relativism or that everyone in it has equally valid points, it's that none of them seem to be capable of isolating the elements of those organizations that functioned/dis-functioned without endorsing/criticizing the organization as a whole while still presenting a cogent argument.
Post reply on HN