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

61–70 of 334 posts

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

#61

Post by jptman »

nxc18 wrote: post #40
ballenf wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube used to be a distribution channel but it slowly became an ad delivery tool with content along for the ride. Like 99% of other free (and even some paid) internet sites. Either way, totally agree that it's a tragic situation. The only sympathy I have for Google is that trying to separate the good vs. "evil" (as in "Don't be evil.") content is a monumental task that machine learning will probably never be capabl…

Google has an inordinate amount of money to spend on inordinate amount of content review. Deleting history and evidence of war crimes is Evil; good thing Google had abandoned their earlier aspirations.

I think you are underestimating the amount of video that gets uploaded to Youtube. Smaller sites may be better at stuff like this but that's solely because they don't have quite the amount of content. Hundreds of hours of videos are uploaded per minute. They may eventually have AI good enough to do a better job, but this is an unprecedented amount of content to review.

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

#62

Post by chc »

crusso wrote: post #58

should be required by law If your videos don't pass the algorithm, post them somewhere else rather than reaching for the government hammer. Youtube/Google has every right to run their business of posting or denying video content the way they see fit without justifying it to you, free user of their service. If you think they're making a bad business decision and that there's a need for a video service that gives great…

"Go start your own business if you disagree" seems like a middlebrow dismissal unless you're actually offering to fund the endeavor.

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

#63

Post by crusso »

emilsedgh wrote: post #20
brndnmtthws wrote: post #4

If you use YouTube, you are subject to the whims of that private corporation, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. They should find a way to host the content somewhere else.

Well almost everything we use these days belongs to a private organization. And we're fully subject to their whims. Something is wrong about that.

And yet, without those private organizations and the free markets that allowed them to thrive - the whole notion of having all that is preserved online by them would be utterly unimaginable. The internet as we know it, capable of passing all this bandwidth to individuals around the world wouldn't exist. At best, it would still be a toy in government labs and academia like it was before it was commercialized.

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

#64

Post by icebraining »

crusso wrote: post #58

should be required by law If your videos don't pass the algorithm, post them somewhere else rather than reaching for the government hammer. Youtube/Google has every right to run their business of posting or denying video content the way they see fit without justifying it to you, free user of their service. If you think they're making a bad business decision and that there's a need for a video service that gives great…

If you think they're making a bad business decision

No, that's not what people arguing for a law think, and if you don't understand that, you can't make an effective argument rebutting their position.

The implied position is that Google is doing something bad for society, even if it's good for business. You may disagree that this is bad for society, or that even if it is, it's still Google's prerogative, but you should at least understand the argument if you want to have a meaningful discussion.

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

#65

Post by mythrwy »

carapace wrote: post #44
pottersbasilisk wrote: post #33

Perhaps its time for google and youtube to be regulated.

"Nationalize Google!" Okay, no, that would be turning the knob to 11. I upvoted you because I was like, "Yeah, maybe some regulation might be good." Then I thought about who would be doing the regulating and now I'm much less enthusiastic. :-/ Still, it does seem like there should be a bit more, uh, community input into how these vast silos are administered.

The community making it's own silo(s) might be another option.

(Problem is, silo making by committee has it's own set of challenges.)

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

#66

Post by raverbashing »

gambiting wrote: post #55
raverbashing wrote: post #38

Why are people storing evidence on Youtube again? Not blaming the victim, but at this point most of Google services have not shown to be reliable, especially if you require some kind of thinking human behind a decision

If you are a rebel in a contested part of the world, submitting videos to youtube takes literally 2 clicks on any cheapest android phone, and then the entire world can watch it. Everything else requires at least a bit of technical expertise which you might not have.

Correct.

You could also save it to Google Drive or other "Cloud Backup" solutions like OneDrive/Dropbox

But I guess hindsight is 20/20, and I would probably have trusted YT more than I should

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

#67

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

crusso wrote: post #58

should be required by law If your videos don't pass the algorithm, post them somewhere else rather than reaching for the government hammer. Youtube/Google has every right to run their business of posting or denying video content the way they see fit without justifying it to you, free user of their service. If you think they're making a bad business decision and that there's a need for a video service that gives great…

And, Government has right to break up monopolies.

I now fully support breaking up Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft; may be Apple.

Executives at publicly traded companies have no right to enforce their individual political views as company policies. They are not privately held companies, they are public companies who are held at higher standards of equal treatment to all.

What if Bic and Mead said you can't write a opinion that we don't like using our pen and notebooks?

What if US Postal Service said you can't send a snail mail if it contains references to UPS or FedEx?

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

#69

Post by icebraining »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #60

And, come to think they had me convinced that this was not going to happen for few decades. I think YouTube went down pretty fast and without fight. The ideological takeover of Facebook and Twitter raged on for few years. I think YouTube was taken over literally overnight. I remember being appreciative of YouTube just a few days back. Guess, time to cancel my $15 Youtube Red Family membership. Ugh, I really hate ads…

I have no idea what you're saying. YouTube was "taken over"? By whom?

If this news was what changed your opinion, you were simply uninformed; nothing has actually changed. YouTube had done the same more than two years ago[1], and that's very unlikely to be the first case.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/2wra0d/well...

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

#70

Post by ingenuous2 »

cvsh wrote: post #32
viridian wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember correctly, the exact same message was delivered to Jordan Peterson a couple of weeks ago or so, before he sat down with the google memo guy. He was in the middle of a bible lecture series, and Google banned his account, and sent the exact same "we've determined that your video does violate our Community Guidelines and have upheld our original decision. We appreciate your understanding." message. It seem…

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…

This has always existed. We call it bureaucracy.
Post reply on HN