Live data from Hacker News

Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

support.google.com

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m always really worried about the unintended consequences of having the government regulate what Google can and cannot moderate on their platform. That strikes me as a larger free speech issue than our current system. I’d recommend just breaking Google’s monopoly; which is an idea that has more benefits and less downside risk.

> I’d recommend just breaking Google’s monopoly Would an independent YouTube be less susceptible to these requests?

This is the reason I really hope we see an uptick in distributed applications.

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those rules applied today would result in indecipherable cesspools of memes at best or a community of authoritarian sympathizers at worst, who would be oh-so-happy to start conditioning their like-minded members to force undesirables away, either explicitly through bans or implicitly through non-stop hatred and coordinated harassment. Neither one is the type of community I have any interest in participating in, and i…

Then don't participate. People will form communities and stick with the groups they like and enjoy, like they always have.

If anything, the issue with social media is that it's too vast and anonymous. Things still work just fine in the physical world.

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#423
post #63

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…

> 共匪 is seen as an insult by a group, but others do not This is where the legal concept of protected classes may be helpful. They're sets of attributes society has deemed one cannot discriminate against. That tends to line up well with said society's line between insulting and hateful. As a legal definition, these class definitions tend to be precise. That makes them convenient for exporting. Notably, political affil…

I disagree that protected classes line up with the dinstinction between insulting and hateful at all, and it scares me that this US-centric line of thinking will probably conquer Europe as well.

You can absolutely mock people (even groups of people) in a hateful way for their looks, body weight, or success in the sexual marketplace. The obvious solution is to add more protected classes! And I'm afraid that is what will happen, simply because it creates administrative work and a nice distraction from everything else (just like adding new emoji every year). And then people will find new ways to hate someone.

I much prefer HN's moderation stance. Either a comment adds value to the discussion, or it tries to derail it. And even though I hate the CCP, I don't think 共匪 is useful, except maybe in a self-ironic kind of way.

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m always really worried about the unintended consequences of having the government regulate what Google can and cannot moderate on their platform. That strikes me as a larger free speech issue than our current system. I’d recommend just breaking Google’s monopoly; which is an idea that has more benefits and less downside risk.

> I’d recommend just breaking Google’s monopoly Would an independent YouTube be less susceptible to these requests?

We don’t know, because right now youtube is one black box in Google’s finance sheets. We don’t know if it is a loss leader, which I think is very likely. Imagine youtube was a separate company that always ran in the red and another private company solely footed their bill. Would you trust YouTube’s neutrality then? Wouldn’t that explicate why competition is having difficulty emerging?

Or imagine YouTube were to split into two; YouTube the distribution platform and YouTube the recommendation engine. Imagine Youtube the platform had to license content publicly. Now it is much more likely to have competition emerging and end users benefiting from it.

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#425
post #414

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

It's never popular to whine about down-votes, doubly so when comparisons to censorship are made.

Even when they seem to be coordinated?

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#426
post #63

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…

well do we have a list of words or symbols they automatically delete?

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#427
post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's never popular to whine about down-votes, doubly so when comparisons to censorship are made.

Even when they seem to be coordinated?

Is it coordination when multiple people choose to avoid the same pile of poo on the sidewalk?

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the first result from Googling "hate speech": > public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation I might broaden the final bit to "immutable characteristics" instead of the specific list they provide. For the same reason, I probably wouldn't consider the comment under discussion hate speech, but I'm really c…

So google gets to decide what's hatespeech? One step closer to the cyberpunk dystopia I'd say.

If anything, I'm saying the opposite.

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the first result from Googling "hate speech": > public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation I might broaden the final bit to "immutable characteristics" instead of the specific list they provide. For the same reason, I probably wouldn't consider the comment under discussion hate speech, but I'm really c…

So google gets to decide what's hatespeech? One step closer to the cyberpunk dystopia I'd say.

If you Google "hate speech", it shows the definition from Wikipedia, which says:

> Hate speech is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".

So no, Google does not decide what hate speech is. They let Wikipedia decide, which happens to go with the Cambridge Dictionary's definition.

Re: Google deletes “communist bandits” from comments on Youtube

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." "The world's" doesn't mean "The part of the world we like most." "Universally" doesn't mean "Nobody in China gets to use our system until the Chinese government adopts Western notions of information control." Google would operate in North Korea if it could, because as a point of philosophy, it's believed that access to more informtio…

Are you speaking as a Google employee or just from personal opinion? Also, this viewpoint is naive. Simply more information isn't better. What if all that information was about the flat earth theory and nothing else? Wouldn't more "mutually consistent" information be a better goal? Flat earth stuff is fun but you must limit yourself to a very small plausible universe in order to really buy into it.

> Are you speaking as a Google employee or just from personal opinion?

The distinction is irrelevant; were I speaking as a Google employee I would still be speaking from personal opinion, not on behalf of my employer.

> Also, this viewpoint is naive. Simply more information isn't better. What if all that information was about the flat earth theory and nothing else?

It's not though; it's "all" the world's information (within constraints; Google also isn't vending a search index to make pedophilic imagery easy to find). But the flat-Earth hypothetical doesn't apply because that's only a subset.

In fact, it doesn't apply in a way that's demonstrative, I think, of the game Google plays with authoritarian states. Google banks on the notion nature cannot be fooled. Sure, individual phrases or sets of facts (like Tienman Square history) can be knocked out of returned datasets. But the missing data leaves holes; it becomes apparent where the cuts are in the data.

This is why North Korea cuts the whole internet; they know it can't be contained. China's ruling party is more subtle; they'll block unpopular signal it if a sense of "decency," as it were, but they know their people aren't stupid. In any sense of "stupid."

Post reply on HN