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

By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 168 posts

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#81

Post by mindgam3 »

least wrote: post #3

Youtube and Facebook, while convenient, aren't really appropriate mediums for them to share this sort of footage. Liveleak comes to mind as a service better suited for a public repository of this video. Archival of footage shouldn't be dependent on a third party platform that can, at will, delete every single video on a whim. Likely for this sort of thing a diligent archivist will need to put in the effort of storing…

> Liveleak comes to mind as a service better suited for a public repository of this video.

Liveleak, seriously? I'm not convinced that a site known for hosting gory and violent videos is really what these human rights activists are looking for.

[Edit] Some context: https://www.businessinsider.com/profile-of-hayden-hewitt-fou...

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#82

Post by corporateslave5 »

CommieBobDole wrote: post #77
corodra wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heaven forbid I ever accidentally click on or get interested in some random talk show video, video roughly about video games or a big media news video. All of my normal engineering, business, programming, guns, history, and mechanics recommendations go right the fuck out the window. For the next week, half my recommendations are just filled with dogshit because of one accidental video. I stopped watching movie traile…

I think that's a problem on every platform; on Apple News, if I read an article that's actual news that involves a celebrity somehow ("Tom Hanks murders 12, dies in hail of gunfire") I get a deluge of celebrity gossip ("OMG you won't believe what Kylie Jenner's cousin's brother's hairstylist said")articles for weeks. I sort of feel like their recommendation AI is a bunch of if-then statements designed to funnel you i…

Yeah these aren’t content recommendation engines, they’re ad engines

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#83

Post by Aloha »

adventured wrote: post #61
lucasmullens wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine." To my understanding websites can chose to not be included in the Wayback Machine.

They've recently made the process intentionally more annoying. You used to be able to exclude a site you control via a robots.txt file. That wouldn't actually delete archived content and would merely hide it from viewing. They no longer honor that approach. You now have to send them an email and specifically request content removal.

I consider this to be acceptable.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#84

Post by washadjeffmad »

waffle_ss wrote: post #43
campfireveteran wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. You need something like Internet Archive or better that is archival quality, random internet vandalism-proof and FBI raid-proof.

The Islamic State posted their content for many years on the Internet Archive. I believe IA did take down content in some cases.

With IA, I feel that they probably de-listed the content but are hosting it for a time when it may be safer to reveal it as part of a greater historical record.

I somehow don't get the same impression from same impression from YouTube

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#85

Post by pixl97 »

thinkingkong wrote: post #20
least wrote: post #3

Youtube and Facebook, while convenient, aren't really appropriate mediums for them to share this sort of footage. Liveleak comes to mind as a service better suited for a public repository of this video. Archival of footage shouldn't be dependent on a third party platform that can, at will, delete every single video on a whim. Likely for this sort of thing a diligent archivist will need to put in the effort of storing…

Been wondering about this phenomenon for awhile. Spotify can delete music history. Youtube can delete video history. If it's on a streaming service it may as well not exist. We're at this strange point where convenience may as well be access, because the same service you used for discovery is the one for consumption. I don't know if this phenomenon has a name.

You better start unthinking before you're the one getting put down the memory hole.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#87

Post by purple_ducks »

corodra wrote: post #62
corndoge wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, exact title searches will usually not turn up videos with that title unless you use quotes. YouTube will return clickbait and Jimmy Kimmel, entirely unrelated to the search, for exact title searches of videos with only a few tens of views.

Heaven forbid I ever accidentally click on or get interested in some random talk show video, video roughly about video games or a big media news video. All of my normal engineering, business, programming, guns, history, and mechanics recommendations go right the fuck out the window. For the next week, half my recommendations are just filled with dogshit because of one accidental video. I stopped watching movie traile…

Try delete it from your watch history: https://www.youtube.com/feed/history

Your recommendations may return to normal.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#88

Post by betterbeehome »

campfireveteran wrote: post #4

Sounds about right. They demonetize blancoliorio's in-depth commercial aircraft and pilot industry analysis as "sad content." Oh and donutoperator gets demonetized despite blurring almost everything and not swearing. Non-corporate content creators and random people have NO rights on corporate platforms like YT. The only solution is another platform that respects creators, has sane/straightforward policies and doesn't…

YouTube denies creators of flourishing through favouritism. I don’t think Rights is the correct way to talk about it. It might even hamstring the dialogue. Discussing opportunity and flourishing is more precise.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#89

Post by corodra »

corporateslave5 wrote: post #82
CommieBobDole wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a problem on every platform; on Apple News, if I read an article that's actual news that involves a celebrity somehow ("Tom Hanks murders 12, dies in hail of gunfire") I get a deluge of celebrity gossip ("OMG you won't believe what Kylie Jenner's cousin's brother's hairstylist said")articles for weeks. I sort of feel like their recommendation AI is a bunch of if-then statements designed to funnel you i…

Yeah these aren’t content recommendation engines, they’re ad engines

I somewhat do agree with the ad engine... but it's a crappy one.

I'm a guy in my 30s. Nothing in my view history ever says, "Hey, this guy is progressive enough to wear makeup." At that, I watch english, polish, and french videos. Ads I get, Spanish. I dont know spanish. I'd accept general language learning ads. But tostitos and I think one was health or house insurance... in spanish. It's like the ad bot is some redneck that thinks there are two languages, American and not-American.

The recommendation bot and ad bot are just terrible. The moment theres a half way decent competitor to youtube, my ass is jumping ship.

Re: By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

#90

Post by least »

mindgam3 wrote: post #81
least wrote: post #3

Youtube and Facebook, while convenient, aren't really appropriate mediums for them to share this sort of footage. Liveleak comes to mind as a service better suited for a public repository of this video. Archival of footage shouldn't be dependent on a third party platform that can, at will, delete every single video on a whim. Likely for this sort of thing a diligent archivist will need to put in the effort of storing…

> Liveleak comes to mind as a service better suited for a public repository of this video. Liveleak, seriously? I'm not convinced that a site known for hosting gory and violent videos is really what these human rights activists are looking for. [Edit] Some context: https://www.businessinsider.com/profile-of-hayden-hewitt-fou...

It comes to mind for that very reason. The rules for uploading to it are less stringent than other services because it's there to provide a platform for things that don't fit on other video platforms on the web. If you're going to be hosting videos of the horrors of war, it's much more likely to stick on liveleak than any other platform.
Post reply on HN