Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

mintpressnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 103 posts

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#71

Post by ilaksh »

devmunchies wrote: post #26
ilaksh wrote: post #11

We use it basically as a public platform but it's really a private one that has deep conflicts of interest. To me this shows the need for public platforms with open systems for distribution and moderation. Some possible approaches are out there. I hope people will support them. And if they find content they don't like, study the history of political dissent and political speech, and learn about ways of improving open…

if you open up moderation then you'll get Tyranny of the Majority[1]. But in the internet age it would actually be tyranny-of-the-people-with-a-chip-on-their-shoulder-and-time-to-burn. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

It's an essentially open feed that gets curated or filtered by various clients or systems before being presented to the user.

There is no single majority.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#72

Post by variable11 »

s3r3nity wrote: post #59
cryptica wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect. Corporations are soulless financial instruments designed purely to deflect blame away from people who repeatedly engage in unethical activities. Corporations ought to be abolished. They are a cancer on society. Just read the legal definition of a corporation out loud and it's pretty clear what it's designed to do. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It's an instrument designed to legitimize crimin…

[flagged]

Keep telling yourself that while you destroy democracy, media, free speech while concentrating wealth and power in an unaccountable technocratic elite unparalleled in history. You all belong in prison from my perspective.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#73

Post by CydeWeys »

Triv888 wrote: post #70
motbob wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fwiw, there have been instances of Google straight up not being able to restore deleted content. When you go to delete videos, you do get warnings that deletion cannot be undone. I wouldn't be surprised if Google didn't have great records of deleted content. Maybe Google deleted this tiny channel, or maybe it was user error by Project Censored (the apparent organizers of the conference), or maybe it was a publicity s…

> I wouldn't be surprised if Google didn't have great records of deleted content. It would surprise me if Google didn't keep everything. Harvesting data is part of their business model.

Then consider yourself surprised. Deleted data is actually deleted. Keeping it around is a huge liability.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#74

Post by pvg »

heimatau wrote: post #69
dang wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm certainly not suggesting that other commenters didn't also break the site guidelines, but what you posted was unsubstantive flamebait. It's easy to underestimate (by 10x or more) how much of this one is doing—commenters are often surprised to hear how their comments have landed with others. The solution to this is not to blame other people but rather to err on the side of posting thoughtfully and substantively. h…

> but what you posted was unsubstantive flamebait Pointing out that the morals of Google diverging from their founding motto is absolutely substantive. As for flamebait, to someone whom has an axe to grind, everything is flamebait. Which is something I have zero control over. > rather to err on the side of posting thoughtfully and substantively. I did. As for beauty, it's in the eyes of the beholder. Which why I'm st…

If you feel the comment was substantive, thoughtful and conducive to interesting discussion, why did you delete it?

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#75

Post by heimatau »

pvg wrote: post #74
heimatau wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but what you posted was unsubstantive flamebait Pointing out that the morals of Google diverging from their founding motto is absolutely substantive. As for flamebait, to someone whom has an axe to grind, everything is flamebait. Which is something I have zero control over. > rather to err on the side of posting thoughtfully and substantively. I did. As for beauty, it's in the eyes of the beholder. Which why I'm st…

If you feel the comment was substantive, thoughtful and conducive to interesting discussion, why did you delete it?

> why did you delete it?

I'll rephrase your question. What is the reason for the deletion of your comment?

Simple. People were flaming. It was getting downvoted and flagged. If the community sends a clear statement (by acting in concert with one another), then I'd prefer not to get downvoted into oblivion. To me, it's not a hill I want to die on. And it was clear that others were misunderstanding. All I can do is communicate my perspective. If someone comes to the conversation with misguided expectations (even if it's a swarm of people), then I'll bow out. It's simple non-violent communication.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#76

Post by stonogo »

ttt0 wrote: post #16
pjc50 wrote: post #12

Bizarre. Anyway, I did a quick check of their website, and they have a really interesting list of "censored" stories: https://www.projectcensored.org/category/the-top-25-censored... (I've not seen any of the usual right wing free speech faction stand up for these...)

Completely off-topic, but why did they list only 5 items per page? I sometimes see websites do this and I don't get it, is it for clicks?

Wordpress (and its competitors) come configured out of the box for maximum click engagement. It's a massive effort to undo.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#77

Post by bordercases »

CydeWeys wrote: post #73
Triv888 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wouldn't be surprised if Google didn't have great records of deleted content. It would surprise me if Google didn't keep everything. Harvesting data is part of their business model.

Then consider yourself surprised. Deleted data is actually deleted. Keeping it around is a huge liability.

Good SRE practices suggest keeping data of certain sorts around for awhile before the deletion is fully completed.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#78

Post by pvg »

heimatau wrote: post #75
pvg wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you feel the comment was substantive, thoughtful and conducive to interesting discussion, why did you delete it?

> why did you delete it? I'll rephrase your question. What is the reason for the deletion of your comment? Simple. People were flaming. It was getting downvoted and flagged. If the community sends a clear statement (by acting in concert with one another), then I'd prefer not to get downvoted into oblivion. To me, it's not a hill I want to die on. And it was clear that others were misunderstanding. All I can do is com…

That's not what I asked, but maybe I can try to rephrase it. It seems odd to be going to such verbose lengths to defend something you wrote but apparently don't want other people to see.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#79

Post by judge2020 »

ttt0 wrote: post #43
exolymph wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (I've not seen any of the usual right wing free speech faction stand up for these...) Hi! Part of the right-wing free-speech faction here! (Well, I don't consider myself a rightist, but you probably would.) This incident sucks just like all the other ones! Hope this helps.

I just want to point out that the stories seem to be about predominantly left-wing causes. I don't expect anyone in the right-wing free-speech faction to even know about them, since 1. it was silenced, 2. it was probably talked about only in more obscure left-wing circles, that right-wingers are not a part of. It's unreasonable to assume that a right-winger would know about it, just like it is unreasonable to assume…

It's fairly unreasonable to assume everyone knows about all the issues on both sides. The current echo chambers make it hard to look at centralist/opposite-leaning news since it might ignite distaste for the reasoning that side uses (aka less dopamine gets fired when you read it compared to when reading from your favorite source), plus news sources that express completely opposite views aren't shared in your echo chamber circles in the first place since you probably don't follow or often talk with people who think opposite of you.

But to address the left-wing causes on the site, It doesn't actually seem like they're partisan issues unless you're talking about the ones specifically about the previous administration, perhaps except for #22 (which boils down to 'we should tax the wealthy', aka something that was not censored, even if it was narrated against) and #6 which is specifically about a new national news source which is trying to deceive readers by appearing as a bunch of different local news sources. Obviously you might not agree with more but they don't seem to be strictly selecting left-wing articles for this top 25 list.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#80

Post by Yoric »

CydeWeys wrote: post #73
Triv888 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wouldn't be surprised if Google didn't have great records of deleted content. It would surprise me if Google didn't keep everything. Harvesting data is part of their business model.

Then consider yourself surprised. Deleted data is actually deleted. Keeping it around is a huge liability.

I don't know how things work these days, but a few years ago, Google's GFS didn't support deletion. The "delete" flag only meant "don't replicate this data" and it was just simpler for them to keep it around until the disk died.

Source: This was published by Google in their research papers on GFS. Sorry, can't remember which paper.

Post reply on HN