
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki addresses hate speech controversy - lawrenceyan
https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/10/youtube-ceo-susan-wojcicki-addresses-hate-speech-controversy/
======
cwperkins
I'm ok with sites working on de-radicalization by making certain content more
difficult to find, but I think we need transparency in all of this. I'm weary
of a giant corporation like Google deciding what is "correct" discourse.

The analog I like to bring up is the College Board devising an "adversity"
score along with your SAT score. I prefer the College Board come up with a
transparent methodology instead of each institution, like Harvard, having an
opaque one of their own. In the future I want to see a world where your zip
code doesn't determine your outcome, but some changes like this happen at a
glacial pace. In a similar light I also want to see discourse become more
civil over time with the rebuilding of the middle class.

~~~
kjeetgill
While I agree I think transparency is a hard problem. Just looking at the cat
and mouse game that Google has been involved in with its search algorithms and
SEO. And that has maybe 20% of the implications towards freedom of speech,
politics, conspiracy, and controversy.

Credit scores have a similar rock, paper, scissors game between objectivity,
transparency, and oversight.

I think some amount of opacity in the algorithm is going to be required but
maybe a published report of actions taken at a 6-12 month lag? That might give
opportunity for critical press and course correction in a broader sense
without nitpicking every call.

I find it hard to hold Google and Facebook so accountable for addressing these
problems personally when we struggle to hold our elected officials accountable
for addressing them.

------
matz1
Hate speech is paradox. In the end its boil down to whoever strong enough to
force other to comply.

------
jstewartmobile
Even though this has already been flagged, I'm going to make a second attempt
at a "substantive" comment:

The high road would be either A) free-speech-absolutism of publish anything
that can legally be published, and take the heat for it, or B) run a family-
channel-style platform of heavily curated content, and take full
responsibility for all of it.

Since this is Google, and they can never have enough money, they take the
weasel route of C) rake in that sweet sweet momo-chan and playdoh-princess
cash until the media catches-on, then pivot to the next batch of lucrative
slime.

~~~
darkpuma
They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Most companies would
probably do the same given the same circumstances. It's disappointing but
predictable.

------
vecplane
Crowder is hilarious, and I love seeing conservative youtubers continue to
fight the good fight.

~~~
dang
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
dvt
I'm not some crazy tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, but it's certainly
telling that Wojcicki spoke at Recode (which is owned by Vox) but didn't give
Crowder the same courtesy. This just screams conflict of interest (and will
only give Crowder more ammunition), but whatever.

Second, it's clear that YouTube, much like Google, et al. are still attempting
to keep their classification as a murky "grey area" where they aren't really
platforms, but they aren't really publishers, so they can make tons of money,
but not seriously answer to the public either. Classic corporatism. And until
our representatives in DC really wake up, I can't really fault them for it.
Our lawmakers barely understand how adding a friend on Facebook works, and I'm
sure Silicon Valley enjoys printing money on the back of this ignorance.

Third, it's incredibly clear that there's an ideologically-liberal slant in
tech. I've met both Muslims as well as Christians that were simply afraid of
the status quo to speak out even though some of these policies made them
uncomfortable. I really wish we could be more honest about this. As a staunch
Millian[1], I contend that diversity of thought is a good thing.

Finally, (imo) anyone who seriously thinks Crowder should've been
censored/deplatformed is just being unfair. He's pretty offensive, but doesn't
really go much further than Colbert, John Oliver, etc.

[1]
[https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html](https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html)

~~~
untog
> He's pretty offensive, but doesn't really go much further than Colbert, John
> Oliver, etc.

I'm sorry, what?

> Last week, Maza called out the abuse in a supercut of comments Crowder has
> made on his popular YouTube channel in the last two years. They include:
> “lispy sprite,” “little queer,” “Mr. Gay Vox,” “Mr. Lispy queer from Vox,”
> “an angry little queer,” “gay Mexican,” and “gay Latino from Vox.”

[https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xwn54q/google-says-
right...](https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xwn54q/google-says-right-wing-
youtube-star-can-continue-his-racist-and-homophobic-abuse)

It's been a while since I watched John Oliver or Colbert, I guess I'm missing
some information that would make the comparison even slightly accurate?

~~~
mikeEnoch
Carlos Maza’s twitter and ig handle is “gaywonk”. He also speaks with a lisp.
He also makes it a point to always point out that he’s “queer” and “latino”.
Calling him those things is not an insult. This is what his whole identity and
claim to fame is.

------
latch
Canada has robust, tried and tested hate speech laws. They've also previously
said they would start regulating platforms unless they started to "self
regulate." It's time.

~~~
chroma
Back in 2007 Christopher Hitchens argued that Canada's hate speech laws are
not only immoral but self-contradictory. The motion: "Be it resolved: Freedom
of speech includes the freedom to hate." Hitchens was fully in favor of that
statement.[1]

His argument has three parts.

First, freedom of speech isn't about the rights of the speaker. It's about the
rights of people who want to listen to that person's ideas. Every time you
silence someone, you are infringing upon the rights of that audience. The
audience might not agree. Maybe they want to understand the speaker's ideas so
they can refute them. But if you prevent the audience from hearing those
views, they can't refute them, and the bad views continue to spread.

Second, censoring requires delegating a censor. But if you follow the first
argument, you'll see that a censor decides for you what you are allowed to
read or hear. I'm an adult and can decide that for myself, thank you very
much.

Third, if you are going to censor hate speech, then you must censor every
major religious text. The bible and the quran contain passages encouraging
hatred of homosexuals, subjugation of women, and taking of slaves. By our
standards, they are utter abominations and any impartial application of a hate
speech law would see these books banned.

The oration by Hitchens is his best. He starts off by yelling "Fire!" to the
audience, and explains just why the analogy of yelling fire in a crowded
theater is a terrible one. (Mainly that it was coined in a SCOTUS ruling that
jailed socialists in WWI for distributing pamphlets against US involvement in
the war.)

1\.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY)

~~~
jhanschoo
Freedom of speech has always been qualified, and this argument does not change
it. At best it succeeds in arguing for free speech restricted to certain
platforms, and the hate speech laws still allow for free speech to private
audiences.

I'll just refute the points you have summarized here since I have no interest
in listening to the entire speech to just extract the argumentative points he
makes.

The first argument doesn't make much sense. If I have terrible views but do
not want to communicate them it is my right to be silent, but if this argument
passes I am infringing on the rights of my potential listeners. If I choose to
discuss my views to an exclusive membership, I am infringing on their rights
as well.

Similarly, IP and copyright laws infringe on this right since they limit the
audience of a work.

Second, just as most people we can agree that certain substances are harmful
and should be made difficult to distribute, similarly most people can agree
that some thoughts are harmful and should be made difficult to communicate.
The question isn't a matter of whether to censor or not, but the degree and
topics.

The final argument, similarly, does not pass for general spaces. Christians
and Muslims do not think that the more icky parts of their texts should be
read by children without appropriate direction. Neither would want a terrible
passage displayed out in the open for their children to see. Some may even
have an interest in restricting it, so as to prevent a critic appropriating
their text to portray them in a bad light. Academics do not think that immoral
should be read by children without proper direction.

~~~
chroma
> Freedom of speech has always been qualified, and this argument does not
> change it. At best it succeeds in arguing for free speech restricted to
> certain platforms, and the hate speech laws still allow for free speech to
> private audiences.

I'm talking against Canadian hate speech laws, not YouTube's policies. It
would be nice if private companies erred on the side of free expression, but
having the government force them to do so is a cure that is worse than the
disease.

> The first argument doesn't make much sense. If I have terrible views but do
> not want to communicate them it is my right to be silent, but if this
> argument passes I am infringing on the rights of my potential listeners. If
> I choose to discuss my views to an exclusive membership, I am infringing on
> their rights as well.

You misunderstand me. I am saying there are people who want to read or listen
to something, and censorship prevents them from doing so. Nobody is saying
that you have a right to force people to listen your message or read it. That
wouldn't generalize.

> Similarly, IP and copyright laws infringe on this right since they limit the
> audience of a work.

Copyright laws are about implementations, not concepts. The argument for free
speech is about spreading ideas, not web rips of the latest Netflix special.
Copyright laws have fair use exemptions to make sure they aren't used to
inhibit people from spreading ideas. That's why I can use a clip of Pat
Robertson in a video criticizing his policies.

> Second, just as most people we can agree that certain substances are harmful
> and should be made difficult to distribute, similarly most people can agree
> that some thoughts are harmful and should be made difficult to communicate.
> The question isn't a matter of whether to censor or not, but the degree and
> topics.

Considering the cost of prohibition and the war on drugs, this argument seems
shaky for you. The cure is worse than the disease! People don't agree on this
at all. If anything, it's the "legalize everything" tribe that has been
gaining traction. So too it is for free speech. In fact in the US, censorship
is forbidden for pretty much everything except leaking classified materials.
The concept is called prior restraint.[1]

> Christians and Muslims do not think that the more icky parts of their texts
> should be read by children without appropriate direction.

This is not true. I personally know at least a dozen children who have the
bible read to them uncensored by their parents. (In one case the father is a
pastor.) They all believe that homosexuality is a sin and that women should be
subservient to their husbands. They got these ideas from the bible, not from
some modern day charlatan.

It's worse for the quran, which encourages people to become Hafiz (one who has
memorized the quran).[2] Parents and schools encourage children to totally
memorize the quran as it's easier to do when you're younger. Over 100,000
children a year memorize it. This includes the verses about valuing the word
of a woman at half that of a man, verses ordering the smiting of the necks of
disbelievers (if you wonder why so jihadists behead so often, it's because of
that), and verses encouraging marital rape.

If one really believes these books are dictated by the creator of the cosmos,
then every word of them is sacred and should be spread as far and as wide as
possible. That is what these people do. That is where people like Abu Bakr al-
Baghdadi and Ayman al-Zawahiri get their philosophies.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint)

2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz_(Quran)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz_\(Quran\))

~~~
apta
> . This includes the verses about valuing the word of a woman at half that of
> a man, verses ordering the smiting of the necks of disbelievers (if you
> wonder why so jihadists behead so often, it's because of that), and verses
> encouraging marital rape.

If you take them out of context, you can understand any text the way you want.
Fortunately, these "controversial" verses weren't seen as such in Islamic
history overall, and groups that deviated (the Kharijites for example) were
intellectually obliterated, and were known not to be able to defend their
incorrect views.

This is not limited to religious texts. Any person with an agenda will find
whatever means to achieve said agenda. Twisting words not to mean what they
do, making up lies, and so on. We see it all the time today, and throughout
history.

------
alexryan
Conservatives tend to "aversion" as their coping mechanism (at its extreme,
this might be labelled "hate") whereas liberals tend towards "connection" as
their coping mechanism (at its extreme this might be labelled "greed").
Interestingly in buddhism "greed, hate and delusion" are considered to be the
3 poisons. i.e. clinging to either greed or hate leads to delusion.

Isn't the fact that "hate speech" is a "thing" whereas "greed speech" is not
evidence of a liberal bias?

~~~
RomanBob
I think you are stretching that greed counts as a coping mechanism via
'connection' in order to fit with the buddhist teaching.

------
plx7437
Social platforms need to be held legally liable for the content they host.
Unless you’re a “dumb pipe” doing one-to-one comms (email services could get
an exemption for spam filters), you’re a publisher.

Hire moderators and the editors. If that doesn’t scale, then you need to cut
back on the user-created content you host.

The content can be shared in other ways via the internet, but networks inside
the network shouldn’t get a free ride anymore.

~~~
null0pointer
So how can any new social media platforms or startups ever be able to support
all that additional staff/infrastructure?

I hold the complete opposite view. The individual that uploaded the content
should be held solely responsible for the publishing of that content. Should
the platform receives a request for removal then by all means the onus would
fall to them to make that decision. If the content is illegal then the
platform should aid law enforcement with whatever information they have on the
uploader. I don't believe it makes any sense to pre-filter content unless
you're deliberately trying to create an opinionated platform (which btw is
fine if that's what you want to do, but it shouldn't be a legal requirement).

~~~
Barrin92
>So how can any new social media platforms or startups ever be able to support
all that additional staff/infrastructure?

Why does it matter if they can? Do we allow unregulated oil drilling startups
in the name of competition? There's no particular reason to assume that the
platforms that govern our social interactions don't fall into a category of
institutions who need to prove that they can keep a grip on their activity.

The quality and civility of public discourse is of principal importance to the
health of liberal societies. Social media platforms are not irrelevant places
of entertainment, it is becoming increasingly clear that they are the primary
space where public consensus is formed. As such, they should be held
accountable accordingly and not be treated like some random market provider of
cat videos.

~~~
null0pointer
That is such an odd comparison to draw. Oil drilling is inherently destructive
to the environment. Social media posts are not, although you do try to make
that argument. The solution to oil drilling destroying the environment is less
drilling. The solution to misinformation is _more_ information.

You seem to think that these platforms govern our interactions. When I am
specifically saying that they should do as little governance as possible. They
are merely the channels by which we communicate.

Edit: Actually I'm saying they should be allowed to do as little governance as
possible. I think they should still have to option to filter however they like
if that's their intention.

~~~
Barrin92
>The solution to misinformation is _more_ information.

Sorry, but how is this self-evident? Why is the solution to misinformation not
indeed less information, from sources that hold authority and are accountable,
well researched, slow enough to be absorbed and reasoned about, and so on?

When exactly was the human brain shaped for a miasma and a stream of low
quality information dripping down the Facebook news feed? There is no evidence
that this is the case.In fact there is evidence to the contrary, the people
most engaged in political news and information are the most easily misled and
biased ([https://www.vox.com/2015/6/8/8740897/informed-voters-may-
not...](https://www.vox.com/2015/6/8/8740897/informed-voters-may-not-be-
better-voters))

>You seem to think that these platforms govern our interactions.

That's not something that I think. Whoever owns our public discourse and our
attention _by definition_ governs our interaction, there is no vacuum of
governance that companies like youtube can fall back on, it just means they're
playing down their influence and responsibility.

~~~
null0pointer
Actually, I agree with you that as a species we are not cognitively equipped
to handle an unrelenting torrent of information. I also agree that well
researched and well presented (though not necessarily authoritative) arguments
should be held to much higher credibility by the voting populace than random
twitter posts. Those more credible arguments should be inherently more
convincing for readers.

What I think actually needs to happen is to teach people the appropriate
critical thinking and reasoning skills to make that distinction for
themselves, rather than force the platforms to make that distinction on their
users' behalf. Societal change is a very slow process that happens over
generations. Every point in history is locally noisy but on a larger timescale
that noise diminishes compared to the underlying trend. I don't think it's
necessary to make changes based on the locally noisy timescale as I believe we
will eventually reach equilibrium between the volume/quality of information in
public discourse and the way the population digests it.

> That's not something that I think.

Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

------
joshdover
I'm normally one to see both sides in a situation like this, but this one
struck me differently.

YouTube appears scared of extremists. They claim to fear a anti-conservative
bias. If by policing blatant bigotry and hate makes you anti-conservative,
there may be an issue with conservatism, not your policy.

If mainstream conservatives have gotten to the point where they'd defend
blatant bigotry, disrespect, and just down right hateful behavior, and we
yield to them, we need a reality check. This type of behavior does not make
our society any better, promote a discussion, or spread any kind of well-
being.

The same behavior would not be tolerated in many of the community spaces we
share: schools, churches, theaters, restaurants. Why do we allow such things
online? Why do we allow women to be harassed endlessly with death rape threats
on Twitter but not in person? I do not understand. To mistake poor cyber
behavior as less important and less influential on our culture may be the
gravest mistake we keep making.

There's a good faith, honest, and respectful way to have differing opinions
and discuss important topics. But this isn't it, and it's not ambiguous. If we
want a world where goodness prevails, we have to stop being scared and start
making choices.

~~~
rangerpolitic
This is a non-starter until hate is unambiguously defined.

~~~
ahelwer
Unambiguous definitions do not exist outside of mathematics. Furthermore,
modern fascist communication strategies rely on existing within this
ambiguity.

~~~
rangerpolitic
What constitutes hate?

Should people be permitted to use the word "marijuana" on YouTube? See:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igtLqhX4BCA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igtLqhX4BCA)

Should people be permitted to use the "okay" gesture in videos? See:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwJgr-4j14E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwJgr-4j14E)

Should people be permitted to use a swastika in videos? See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Contemporary_use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Contemporary_use)

It seems the fascists are already taking advantage of the ambiguity.

------
Ronnie_Dipple
If Google aka YouTube doesn't allow Conservatives to voice their opinions on
the platform then there's the very real possibility that the president himself
may get involved.

As we all know Google is on shaky ground atm.

