Google, Facebook quietly move toward automatic blocking of “extremist” videos • Hacker News Board

Re: Google, Facebook quietly move toward automatic blocking of “extremist” videos

#31

Post by dave2000 » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 10:05 PM UTC

exstudent2 wrote: post #21

dave2000 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No-one's saying you can't discuss it. But where's the discussion? I just don't see how you one can say "company A has no right to decide what appears on company A's servers" without following up with some watertight legal or moral reason why this should not be the case. Of course they should be able to.

The discussion is in this thread. You replied to another of my comments where I spell out why I think this is a bad idea.

Well, your argument was that trump was a right wing phenomenon caused by "left wing media shaping" but there IS no left wing media in the US as far as I can tell. The right wing/elite serving media like to pretend there is to drag the public/debate further to the right. Movements like trump are people knowing they're getting screwed but having the elite (people like Trump) blame mexicans or muslims (people with no money or power) or whoever rather than the banks, corporations and government itself (who have all the money and power). It doesn't make any difference which story trends on facebook or which youtube video gets pulled. If people wanted to learn about where the power is and how and why people who have generally good intentions are tricked into voting for people like trump then they'd be watching chomsky videos/interviews which are never pulled. By your logic chomsky would do well to get them taken down so that people try and discover what they're missing. But it doesn't work that way.

Re: Google, Facebook quietly move toward automatic blocking of “extremist” videos

#32

Post by vonklaus » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 10:07 PM UTC

putaside wrote: post #27

Google, Facebook, and especially Twitter are used by terrorist organisations for recruitment and propaganda. These videos brainwash young people into hatred of the west, incite them to leave their countries to go join a war that is not theirs, polarize, and are directly responsible for suicide attacks. Sure, information wants to be free, and all that cyberpunk jazz. At what cost? Apparently at the cost of innocent li…

interesting. I would never make this trade and find it horrifying.

> This makes more clear the difference between a real jihadist with bad intentions, and a pious person slowly being brainwashed

While I respect you view it this way, I have trouble believing this is even slightly reminiscient of reality. You seem to imply that if not for terrorist propaganda on twitter, "pious" people would not be terrorists. I suspect this is an outlandish strawman devoid of any substance.

> At what cost? Apparently at the cost of innocent lives.

This has always been the cost. Many people have knowingly given their lives for such ideals. Certainly private corporations have the freedom and latitude to make their own decisions, however, there is a reason freedom of speech was built into the bill of rights.

edit: it was indicated that driving them underground was considered positive, I would also like to respectfully disagree. If we accept this is where the "real" terrorists are congregating (online communities) having them remain in plain view and analyzing their recruitment and propaganda techniques would likely be a high leverage option.

Re: Google, Facebook quietly move toward automatic blocking of “extremist” videos

#33

Post by cinquemb » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 10:10 PM UTC

dave2000 wrote: post #14

exstudent2 wrote: post #6

I wonder what it is they hope to accomplish by blocking this type of content. One could argue that what actually happens is a Streisand effect that promotes the views these companies are attempting to squash. My belief is that movements like Trump are a direct effect of overreaching censorship by the left which has essentially created a new right wing movement due to people backlashing against left wing media shaping…

If by "extremist content" you mean religious fanatics beheading people, or calling people to arms, or giving tips on producing bombs or whatever, then you are entitled to treat this as "unpopular ideas" which "need defending in a free society" or whatever, but don't be surprised if sane, rational people take a somewhat different view and decide they don't want to spread hatred, nor leave themselves open to lawsuits f…

One mans this months crop of terrorist™ atrocities is another mans this months crop of metadata drone strikes :P

Re: Google, Facebook quietly move toward automatic blocking of “extremist” videos

#34

Post by jimmywanger » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 10:13 PM UTC

cinquemb wrote: post #30

jimmywanger wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube, Facebook, Twitter all loudly trumpeted their attempts to assist "free speech", especially during the Arab Spring. And they were only doing that when what they were doing was going along with the cultural democratic zeitgeist at the time. If they were more open about "Hey, we're providing you a free service, we can shut you down if you don't conform to public opinion" that's fine also. But you can't have it b…

> You can't say "I support expressing opinions, as long as I approve of them, and I support freedom!" Yeah, they can say that, but reality doesn't have to conform to such when the chickens come home to roost :P

Ah. What I meant to say is "you can't say that with integrity".

The overthrown governments probably thought that the opinions expressed on Twitter and Facebook were highly extremist, and should be shut down.

The only reason they weren't (And they even built an SMS bridge for Twitter) is because their biggest markets supported the insurrection. And if that were made a bit more obvious, it would be far more honest and interesting.

Re: Google, Facebook quietly move toward automatic blocking of “extremist” videos

#35

Post by cinquemb » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 10:20 PM UTC

jimmywanger wrote: post #34

cinquemb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't say "I support expressing opinions, as long as I approve of them, and I support freedom!" Yeah, they can say that, but reality doesn't have to conform to such when the chickens come home to roost :P

Ah. What I meant to say is "you can't say that with integrity". The overthrown governments probably thought that the opinions expressed on Twitter and Facebook were highly extremist, and should be shut down. The only reason they weren't (And they even built an SMS bridge for Twitter) is because their biggest markets supported the insurrection. And if that were made a bit more obvious, it would be far more honest and…

>Ah. What I meant to say is "you can't say that with integrity".

What companies have time for such quaint notions of integrity these days? They're too busy trying to extract profit! :P

>…And if that were made a bit more obvious, it would be far more honest and interesting.

I think that a lot of people in the western world choose to willingly turn a blind eye to such, and its a shame, because it will eventually be at their own peril if we look to history as any example.

Re: Google, Facebook quietly move toward automatic blocking of “extremist” videos

#36

Post by hacker42 » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 10:21 PM UTC

cisstrd wrote: post #22

hacker42 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that current social media software just makes it too easy for extremist bubbles to form. There is no feedback, no discussion, no diffusion, no guiding culture and plenty of false information spread by people who would be unable to publish anything to larger audiences if it wasn't practically for free. To a certain extent, economic systems do filter out people who are challenged at seeking truth. Intern…

But people not only "bubble" themselves, Google and Facebook (everything personalised to one's liking) heavily encourage that, so using the "bubble effect" as justification for removing radical content is really strange.

I was just hinting at what I think is the core problem. If you want to avoid radicalizing bubbles without blocking content, you need to encourage diffusion of ideas, discussion and confrontation. Perhaps, however, radicalized people are just too closed-minded for any such software solution. Then the question is what is worse: An occasional discussion about the decision boundary of what kind of content should be blocked, or dealing with radicalized groups of people more often, potentially risking more terror attacks and also the freedom limiting laws that ensue.

Re: Google, Facebook quietly move toward automatic blocking of “extremist” videos

#37

Post by mcphage » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 10:24 PM UTC

jimmywanger wrote: post #25

dave2000 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's that company's site then I don't see who else has any business getting involved. Do you want someone telling you what (legal) content you can or can't show? Why?

Youtube, Facebook, Twitter all loudly trumpeted their attempts to assist "free speech", especially during the Arab Spring. And they were only doing that when what they were doing was going along with the cultural democratic zeitgeist at the time. If they were more open about "Hey, we're providing you a free service, we can shut you down if you don't conform to public opinion" that's fine also. But you can't have it b…

> If they were more open about "Hey, we're providing you a free service, we can shut you down if you don't conform to public opinion" that's fine also. But you can't have it both ways.

That's why articles like these are being written—it's the companies letting everyone know that they're changing their policies. They used to be more laissez-faire, didn't like the results, and now are starting to rethink their decisions. I imagine in a few months' time they'll have figured out how they want it to go, and will publish updated guidelines.

Re: Google, Facebook quietly move toward automatic blocking of “extremist” videos

#38

Post by jimmywanger » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 10:39 PM UTC

jimmywanger wrote: post #5

tamana wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These walled gardens have have TOSes. Extremist or political, content that violates TOS gets taken down .

From the Facebook TOS, and YouTube's is much the same, with different, more casual verbiage: You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user. You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence. That is such a broad swathe that any unpopular opinion can get disqualified. Is me posting a video of how to sharpen a kitche…

I guess I didn't make myself clear enough.

The guidelines are all very subjective. Pornographic is a gray area, but "bully, intimidate, or harass". Who decides that? The victim?

And the guideline "Don't be a dick" is the exact opposite of what my point is. Unpleasant people, pendants, trolls, irritants, those are the people the free speech are designed to protect.

If you're generally pleasant and say nothing controversial, you don't need any legal protection. A firm belief that people who espouse unpleasant and unpopular opinions are what a democracy needs is what we need to protect, cause those are the people who effect change or inject new ideas into society.

Re: Google, Facebook quietly move toward automatic blocking of “extremist” videos

#39

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 10:42 PM UTC

dave2000 wrote: post #31

exstudent2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The discussion is in this thread. You replied to another of my comments where I spell out why I think this is a bad idea.

Well, your argument was that trump was a right wing phenomenon caused by "left wing media shaping" but there IS no left wing media in the US as far as I can tell. The right wing/elite serving media like to pretend there is to drag the public/debate further to the right. Movements like trump are people knowing they're getting screwed but having the elite (people like Trump) blame mexicans or muslims (people with no mo…

[deleted]

Re: Google, Facebook quietly move toward automatic blocking of “extremist” videos

#40

Post by Natsu » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 10:44 PM UTC

dave2000 wrote: post #31

exstudent2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The discussion is in this thread. You replied to another of my comments where I spell out why I think this is a bad idea.

Well, your argument was that trump was a right wing phenomenon caused by "left wing media shaping" but there IS no left wing media in the US as far as I can tell. The right wing/elite serving media like to pretend there is to drag the public/debate further to the right. Movements like trump are people knowing they're getting screwed but having the elite (people like Trump) blame mexicans or muslims (people with no mo…

> there IS no left wing media in the US as far as I can tell.

That's because left wing media does not, in fact, exist. The only types of media that actually exist are right wing media and media that's not left enough. That's a fuzzy distinction to be sure, but it makes the bias clear enough at least.