
YouTube Will Redirect Searches For Extremist Videos To Anti-Terrorist Playlists - lainon
http://www.tubefilter.com/2017/07/20/youtube-redirect-searches-extremist-anti-terrorist-playlists/
======
IIAOPSW
I hate the fact that if I voice anything skeptical of this policy someone will
call me a terrorist sympathizer. I'm of the conviction that the idea of
blowing yourself up is bad enough that we don't really need to censor it.
Furthermore I've noticed that the public largely stops thinking the moment
"terrorists" or "ISIS" is mentioned. We now live in a state where we can't
move ~5000 USD without informing the government because "anti-terrorism money
laundering laws". We can't mail certain food products into the US because "bio
terrorism act of 2003". Our FBI wants to back door encryption because "ISIS".
Notice a pattern yet?

Will it stop with ISIS? Once the precedent is set how long will it be before
other search results are manipulated for political reason?

And its not like there's any side of the political spectrum I can vote for.
Both Hillary and Trump wanted to censor extremism on Twitter. Both wanted to
expand the no-fly list into a no-buy-guns list (constitutional implications be
damned). Left, right, center and abroad the civil libertarian is under siege.

~~~
alextheparrot
I get your point - we've slowly, and sometimes quite quickly, seen some of our
rights eroded as a result of policies that are advertised as being anti-
terrorist.

Speaking directly to this policy, though, isn't your man premise that blow
oneself up is bad enough in a vacuum unsupported? Many of these videos are
crafted by the terrorist organizations as a recruitment tool. Wouldn't th see
organizations not create them if they didn't wield at least some power to
actually recruit or radicalize? I don't think arguing that line is consistent,
even if I agree that we shouldn't censor these videos.

~~~
megous
There are also videos made by murderous dictatorial regimes as a recruitment
tool. YouTube has no problem with that. There are videos made by US to get
more cannon fodder for their wars which also killed millions of innocent
people over the decades. Where do you stop?

I'm fine with stopping recruitment videos for war, but at least do it on
principle as against the war, not just against a few particular organizations.
It's ridiculous otherwise. It's just one belligerent suppressing the other one
in a conflict. Nothing else.

~~~
electriclove
IMO, there is a difference between war and attacks on civilians.

~~~
philipov
A hypothetical difference, or a practical difference? Can you give me an
example of a war that managed to avoid attacks on civilians?

------
freeflight
This recent trend is really worrisome. YouTube also shut down quite a lot of
channels in connection with the Syrian civil war. Reddit too closed down a
couple of subreddits, and admins banned users who shared ISIS related content
on the /r/syriancivilwar/ subreddit.

What an utterly useless and counterproductive exercise in de facto censorship.
The only thing this does is drive people deeper into the underground, even
closer to actual extremists.

Extremist ideas need to be fought with rational discourse, drag them out into
the open and let the sunshine disinfect them. Trying to hide them out of
sight, like they don't exist, only makes them fester all the more in secret
and partly legitimizes these extremists in their view of being unjustly
persecuted.

~~~
kpil
Great then. Do you have any ideas then how to stop the radicalisation of young
muslims? I'm less inclined to believe that rational discussions with ISIS
warriors and their supporters will lead that far.

I live in what used to be one of the most secular countries in the world, and
for various reasons our government have encouraged immigration from the middle
east for 20 years, providing free education, free healthcare, generous social
welfare, and an actively non-racist society. Unfortunately, this didn't seem
to automatically integrate many in our society, mainly because of unemployment
caused by the originally low "human capital", and partly due to there are many
cultural issues that wasn't even socially acceptable to discuss at all until
recently.

While many have done great, there are many more that haven't and the 2nd or
3rd generation are still doing pretty bad compared to the natives, which has
created street gangs and criminality in many areas, even in small towns.

Among many bad things, one of the results is that we now have many ISIS
warriors here, and no plan on how to handle them. It doesn't even seem to be
illegal to be an ISIS warrior here.

Many more are susceptible to the propaganda, and in my book, any means stop
the propaganda is more than welcome. I really don't understand how large US
companies can carry messages from violent extremist like it's no big deal.

~~~
scrollaway
> _Great then. Do you have any ideas then how to stop the radicalisation of
> young muslims?_

The stuff GP is talking about is generally not being done to "stop the
radicalisation of young muslims" but more likely as CYA/good PR. Maybe for
some it's genuinely in good spirit but let's be honest here, it's probably not
going to make a big difference.

Ideas to stop radicalization? Well, slowing down marginalization first would
be a good move and that's going nowhere good in the US right now. Maybe
electing representatives and leaders that don't feed on a self-fueled machine
of fear would help. To do that you need an electorate with more critical
thinking, which means better education. (And here you see you got a catch-22
since you need leaders that fight for better education in the first place...)

Concretely, what "you" as in any average joe can do is not much, but if you
want to do something: help people understand their votes, educate them on
politics as well as foreign culture, make them travel more.

What a big company like Google/Youtube could do if they cared to fight for it?
Probably a hell of a lot more, but they're not in that business honestly.

~~~
kpil
I wish we could stop the marginalization, but just free education including
university, healthcare, etc, isn't enough apparently.

It's a similar problem as other marginalized groups - there must be some
dynamics in play that keeps them marginalized.

Maybe it's as simple as their own pride combined with more or less subtle
classism (more than racism) from the middle classes that alienates them.

I don't think this is fixable without rather far going measures, like tearing
down bad suburbs and rebuild as low scale areas that encourages a high degree
of social control that also the middle class would like to live in, forcibly
designate schools to assure an even mix of social background, programs for
encouraging studies, repress religious influences, some new ideas to punish
young criminals without putting them in crime-scools like now, and probably
really harsh punisment for repeat offenders.

Nothing of this is likely to happen except harsh punishment that won't do much
on its own.

~~~
freeflight
> It's a similar problem as other marginalized groups - there must be some
> dynamics in play that keeps them marginalized.

It's called having a scapegoat, it's especially obvious in Europe. 30 years
ago the scapegoats in Western Europe used to be Eastern Europeans. Refugees
from the Yugoslav wars had not been welcomed at all, EU expansion to the East
(Poland) resulted in a lot of racist sentiments flaming up along the lines of
"These Poles are gonna steal all our stuff and are criminal".

Now, 30 years later, not much has changed. Those that used to be marginalized
have now found a new target they can marginalize themselves: Muslim refugees.

Suddenly we have a "European Identity" and that identity even includes Eastern
Europeans who seem to have learned very little from their own marginalization
and now proceed to do exactly the same things to another group.

It looks like humans always need somebody to put the blame on, stuff just
can't go wrong, there always has to be some "evil mind" behind all the ugly
stuff that happens.

------
kovalevlad
That's all very well but perhaps they should also stop deleting Russian
opposition videos/channels and justify that by claiming they contain extremist
content when there is none. #FixRussianYoutube -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZwAVsAgsLQ&t=190s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZwAVsAgsLQ&t=190s)

~~~
IIAOPSW
I got to agree with the other guy on this. Youtube is bound by the laws of
whatever country they operate in. If they refuse to cooperate with the Russian
gov they will be banned and some other service which does comply will take
their place. If you want to #FixRussianYoutube you got to first
#FixRussianGovernment.

~~~
GhotiFish
I think your chances are doing that are slim. Maybe a better strategy is to
not base our societal discourse on central points of control.

Maybe #FixInternet.

------
BartSaM
And who will decide what is "Extremist Videos"? This is a dangerous game YT
plays now. Who will decide who is a freedom fighter and who is an extremist?
Who is good and who is bad?

~~~
megous
It doesn't need to be decided in any meaningful or principled way. The metric
can simply be: whatever brings in more advertising money and less trouble from
people in power.

YouToube is no unbiased public service with higher moral or principled goals.
It has to operate in a complicated world with many competing pressures from
powerful entities.

------
Synaesthesia
I wonder if white supremacist videos are gonna count as terrorist
[https://theintercept.com/2017/07/06/facebooks-tough-on-
terro...](https://theintercept.com/2017/07/06/facebooks-tough-on-terror-talk-
overlooks-white-extremists/)

~~~
throw34away5
I also wonder if any religious video of any faith that calls for beating one's
wife,inequality between men and women, death for non believers and
homosexuals, antisemitism or female genital mutilation will also be counted as
extremist video.

~~~
StavrosK
Even if the video calls for none of those, you mean?

Of course, like you, I would quite like to see all Christian videos banned,
but I'm afraid it might set a precedent.

~~~
ricksharp
Really, because we must censor ideas like "love your enemies" and "treat
others the way you want to be treated"? (Matthew 5:44)
([https://youtu.be/L0HhHLHLHaA](https://youtu.be/L0HhHLHLHaA))

I agree that abusers will use any name for their own means, but generalization
of a group because of false persons who claim that group is never helpful.

Of course there are the false teachers who use Christianity for their own
power (i.e. televangelist types), but there are also people who actually
believe the great teachings like forgiveness and love one another. They are
the ones who will pick you up when someone else has beaten you into the mud.

~~~
StavrosK
Yes, because none of Islam preaches love and none of Christianity preaches
death to homosexuals.

~~~
hnbroseph
i don't see many christians blowing up kids 'for jesus', or decaptitating
children 'for jesus' or throwing people off buildings, or raping or
pillaging...

the radicalization of young christians into violent murder machines is a
massive problem.

certtainly we must pursue this blatant false equivalency at all costs. because
all religion is obviously the same in every way.

~~~
krapp
> i don't see many christians blowing up kids 'for jesus', or decaptitating
> children 'for jesus' or throwing people off buildings, or raping or
> pillaging...

Most Muslims don't do any of those things, either.

Meanwhile, some Christians do blow up abortion clinics, shoot up gay
nightclubs, mosques and Sikh temples, and put Bible verses on their gunsights
when shooting Muslims in the desert. And then you have Christian groups like
the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda who do decapitate children, rape and
pillage "for Jesus," and practice many of the same violent tactics as any
Muslim extremist group.

>certtainly we must pursue this blatant false equivalency at all costs.
because all religion is obviously the same in every way.

You are right about there being a false equivalency, but it's not where you
seem to think it is.

~~~
hnbroseph
> Most Muslims don't do any of those things, either.

most soviets never hurt anyone. most nazis never hurt anyone.

> some Christians do ...

with what structural support? how often do they quote verses and present a
religious arguments that millions are sympathetic to?

> it's not where you seem to think it is

your dialectic of equivalency that you engage in legitimizes religiosity and
by proxy religious violence, and delegitimizes secularism as well as non-
religiosity and atheism.

~~~
krapp
>how often do they quote verses and present a religious arguments that
millions are sympathetic to?

Millions of Americans are sympathetic to the idea of a war with Islam being
necessary to usher in Armageddon, and of current US policy being a way to
bring this about. George W. Bush even called the War on Terror a "new
Crusade," explicitly evoking the mythology of war between Christianity and
Islam, a mythology which exists in both religions, although in a context in
which each religion believes it will win.

The philosophies of modern, Apocalyptic conservative Christianity and radical
Islam are more alike than different.

>your dialectic of equivalency that you engage in legitimizes religiosity and
by proxy religious violence, and delegitimizes secularism as well as non-
religiosity and atheism

How does it legitimize religiosity and violence to point out that both
Christianity and Islam have a violent fringe?

~~~
hnbroseph
> George W. Bush even called the War on Terror a "new Crusade,"

perhaps ironically for your argument, he's also the guy who started the
'religion of peace' comedy (iirc anyways).

> How does it legitimize religiosity and violence to point out that both
> Christianity and Islam have a violent fringe

it's not about 'have a violent fringe'. your words convey 'there are no
functional differences'. islam has a 'violent fringe' in the way the
revolutionary proletariats or nazi brownshirts had a 'violent fringe'. the
violence is rationalized through ideological structures.

when your dialectic is unable to articulate or recognize the extant
ideological structures that rationalize, justify and endorse violence, the
discussion must then pursue things outside of religion if it pretends to
explain anything.

this supports the postmodernist and terrorist sympathizer claims that every
dead westerner brought it upon themselves for being evil westerners.

this dialetic is further endorsed and mirrored by islamists (and other
religionists) who fold this into a dialectic where religion is good by
definitional fiat.

their religion doesn't influence violence because religion is good by
definition. any suggestion otherwise becomes a category error.

but hey. maybe you're right. perhaps western civilization is functionally the
same as isis, and we shouldn't judge misunderstood islamists.

their violence has no religious basis (religion is good!), it's just them
defending themselves from our evil ways by decapitating children while
screaming (purely coincidentally, no correlation) 'allahu akhbar'.

~~~
krapp
> islam has a 'violent fringe' in the way the revolutionary proletariats or
> nazi brownshirts had a 'violent fringe'. the violence is rationalized
> through ideological structures.

Well, no, Islam has a 'violent fringe' in the way Germans had a violent
fringe. Are you claiming that every Muslim is the equivalent of a Nazi
brownshirt, when not even every Nazi was a brownshirt, and not every German
was a Nazi? It seems like you're making my point more than refuting it.

>when your dialectic is unable to articulate or recognize the extant
ideological structures that rationalize, justify and endorse violence, the
discussion must then pursue things outside of religion if it pretends to
explain anything.

I do recognize them, I'm just refusing to recognize that they only exist in
Islam.

I'm attempting to draw an equivalency between radical Islam and radical
Christianity, and trying to point out that while similar claims about the
violent ideals and tactics can be made about both, particularly when taking a
literal interpretation of the canon of each religion, neither represents the
mainstream view of that religion.

You're kind of proving my point, here. The problem with radical Islam isn't
Islam, it's the politics of the radicals and the states that support them.

>this supports the postmodernist and terrorist sympathizer claims that every
dead westerner brought it upon themselves for being evil westerners

But, that's not a claim I'm actually making, so no it kind of doesn't. It
seems like we're typing past one another.

------
alsadi
This is very scary. They control what we see and only show us what they want
us to see. Some party use terrorism execuse to have more control. Play on
people fears to take their freedom and choice.

What they believe to be politically right is now what is right. This is drak
ages church stoning witches and if you say something against it then you
support black magic and get stoned

------
thinkloop
It's hard to tell what "redirect to playlists" means - will the relevant
videos be completely censored, or are they adding a playlist of opposing views
to the same results? The latter seems like a nice compromise.

~~~
mgiannopoulos
>> Once we have this content in place, we create targeted advertising
campaigns that serve this content directly to people who are searching for
information about ISIS and the caliphate, as well as people who are trying to
view extremist content online. We serve these ads the same way that businesses
have been doing for years—we serve advertising against certain keywords that
people tend to use when they’re looking for jihadist content online <<
[https://redirectmethod.org/qa/](https://redirectmethod.org/qa/)

------
oelmekki
Which also means journalists won't be able to access those videos as sources.
Although, I'm not ready to call that a bad decision, because propaganda is
indeed the biggest problem with ISIS.

This is just treating the symptom, obviously (why do young people ever
consider joining a terrorist group? Certainly not through youtube videos as
the only factor), but also treating the symptom is ok if we try to solve the
deeper problem at the same time (unemployment? defiance resulting from
corruption?).

~~~
megous
Also normal people who just don't want to be fed the conclusions and sanitized
images from the news outlets, and want to watch the actual thing in full
length, compare information from multiple opposing sources, geolocate events,
timestamp them, or whatever is up to their current fancy, to be able to form
their worldview themselves also have a harder time. But that's nothing new,
you already have to be quick, as links have been disappearing shortly after
being posted for a long time.

------
newscracker
How will YouTube decide if my search (as an example) is to learn more about
extremism? Maybe I'm a budding political and social thinker who's interested
in understanding the deeper driving forces and would like to come up with
approaches on how to deal with these threats in ways that are not just "let's
just bomb the hell out of all these people and that will solve the problem
once and for all." What about journalists who want to report on these
propaganda videos in a concise yet coherent manner for the rest of the public
to get a better grip of things? What about policy makers who'd like to
understand and then take action? What about think tanks and policy research?
What about economic and political researchers? What about "good" people who
create similar videos for educational purposes (maybe a classroom assignment
to analyze and come up with essays)?

I seem to be repeating stuff, but there are a lot of people who can truly help
humankind (and non-humans) by accessing these videos. We have to get better at
understanding things better before we can claim to have solutions. The
dynamics of a year ago may not be the same as what exists now or what may
happen a year from now. Censorship is a bad answer if we want to solve issues.

Would even the intelligence agencies be happy with such a move since it makes
the wanted people disappear off their radars and use other modes of
communication? _I believe this is a self-defeating attitude and approach for
anyone who desires to look beyond knee jerk reactions and instant
conclusions._

The way to deal with damaging propaganda is to create more awareness and
education material and put it in front of people, IMO.

------
mgiannopoulos
It should be noted that this not an actual redirect. As I understand it, no
content is hidden. The "redirect" name is terribly chosen.

All they do is add ads for other videos

From the FAQ >> Once we have this content in place, we create targeted
advertising campaigns that serve this content directly to people who are
searching for information about ISIS and the caliphate, as well as people who
are trying to view extremist content online. We serve these ads the same way
that businesses have been doing for years—we serve advertising against certain
keywords that people tend to use when they’re looking for jihadist content
online << [https://redirectmethod.org/qa/](https://redirectmethod.org/qa/)

------
avaer
I'd even be fine with this if it were applied equally to US politicians
calling for executions and sermons threatening people with damnation.

This isn't about actual extremism though; it's simply about getting off of
YouTube the things that cannot be sold for advertising dollars.

------
mnm1
This is simply censorship. YouTube has a right to censor its content so it can
make more money. The service will be less useful for research and reporting of
news stories, I suppose but the censorship is not any different than what TV
and other media have been doing for decades. Frankly, I'm surprised it took
them this long. They are a commercial entity after all and their only reason
for being is to make money. Of course, now they are using the technology to
censor terrorists. Tomorrow they'll censor more reasonable content, no doubt.
That's how these things work.

------
gaius
There is already suspicion that Google manipulated results for political ends:
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/31/google_axes_eu_refe...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/31/google_axes_eu_referendum_website/)

You might think "good, it was a stupid idea anyway" but what if next time it's
something that _you_ care about? It's a dangerous precedent to allow to be
set.

------
logicallee
what's interesting is that Google has been doing this for some time! For the
longest time I was curious what would happen if you did a specific but
obviously wrong search such as "how do I poison someone and get away with it"
or "how do I join ISIS without being caught" or something. Well as you can
imagine for obvious reasons I did not do those searches! (To spell it out, I
did not want them in my search history, and also they show pretty clear
criminal intent, and also we have clandestine agencies who presumably watch
for such things perhaps with Google's cooperation, etc.)

Well some time ago I had the brilliant idea that I could test an "obviously
wrong" search to see what kinds of results it would give.

So I'm male, and I decided to search "How do I trick a man into thinking he's
the father" or something (as though I'm pregnant) which is pretty clearly
wrong but which I'm obviously immune to the idea of intent for. (To spell it
out, because males obviously don't get pregnant.)

I expected search results like forum discussions, a Yahoo Answer question
phrased with that exact word, etc. You know, same as if you Google any other
specific question like that.

Well that's not what I got at all. Despite my very specific question phrased
something like the above, ALL of the top ten links were to pages about
"paternity fraud" \- which I didn't even know was a thing. (I just thought it
was just a shitty thing to do, and anyway could always be played off as a
genuine mistake.)

So I instantly learned that what I was Googling was fraud, and closed the page
without clicking any of the links to learn more. But my reaction was: well
played, Google!!

If I had actually started out with that thought, it's likely I would have
abandoned it after that search.

To be clear, Google did NOT answer my question directly (even though no doubt
there are tons of pages that would have answered it exactly as asked), instead
teaching me why it's wrong.

I was very impressed. I can only imagine the same would be done for some of
the worse types of queries someone can do.

-

 _Note: just to make this gender-neutral: if I were a woman then to do my
experiment I could have Googled something like "how long can I trick her into
having sex with me if I got a vasectomy and she is trying to get pregnant" or
something, which obviously cannot be a genuine question by a woman._

~~~
johnchristopher
Have you tried without a profile and with another profile ?

I regularly search Google with questions I think another persona would ask
(parents or project manager recently).

~~~
logicallee
no but it doesn't matter - none of the pages had my search terms, and they all
had a different search term. It's obvious Google actively decided to return
totally different pages.

for my example with the vasectomy, it's as though all the pages returned were
about "sex by deception" or maybe even "rape by deception". I'm not going to
do the male version so we'll never know :)

~~~
johnchristopher
These are my results for "How do I trick a man into thinking he's the father"
(same results for normal profile and anonymous browsing):

``` It Is Never OK to Trick a Man Into Fatherhood | CafeMom
thestir.cafemom.com/pregnancy/128660/it_is_never_ok_to Women who trick men
into fatherhood are the lowest of the low. ... like these where the man is
clearly duped into becoming a father because of the woman's ... I think
mothers need to be supported and that men get off the hook on many things ...
NO SHE DIDN'T ! she's NEVER had a kid, and I know it, before when we used to
...

Four men reveal the trauma of becoming a dad by deception | Daily ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Four-men-reveal-trauma-dad-deception.ht... She's not
the only one to have tried this ultimate deception. ... Last week, Liz Jones
confessed how she tried to trick her husband into fathering her child. .... I
also think Carol wasn't thinking of the child, and I wonder how she ...

Man fools partner into thinking he's in bed on Twitter | Daily Mail Online
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Boyfriend-fools-partner-thinking-s-bed.ht... The man
used a coat to construct a fake bed and took a selfie while at the ... with
his attempt to trick his girlfriend into thinking he is in bed while.

These Guys Say They Were Tricked Into Becoming Fathers | Glamour
[https://www.glamour.com/story/these-guys-say-they-were-
trick](https://www.glamour.com/story/these-guys-say-they-were-trick) ... who
supposedly trick men into having babies with them--the idea being, ... He's
never met his son and bailed when I was 11-weeks pregnant (and I ... their
guys with the complete intension of getting pregnant but I also think ...

It Happened to Me: I Tried to Trick my Ex Into Getting Me Pregnant
www.xojane.com/.../it-happened-me-i-tried-trick-my-ex-getting-m... “Besides,”
she coaxed me, “really, don't you think he's gay? ... now to my beautiful son,
whose father -- my husband -- was a willing participant ...

Eight Loving Ways to Manipulate Someone into Loving You - Medium
[https://medium.com/.../eight-loving-ways-to-manipulate-
someo...](https://medium.com/.../eight-loving-ways-to-manipulate-someone-..).
Here are eight tricks you can use which I don't think cause any harm… ... Try
them not just on lovers but also on parents, siblings, friends and anyone ...
Stare into someone's eyes for 60 seconds to induce feelings similar to love.
... end of the film when he's expecting you to say something like, “That
Meryl.

Secretarial Wars - Page 89 - Résultats Google Recherche de Livres
[https://books.google.be/books?isbn=0595275923](https://books.google.be/books?isbn=0595275923)
Linda Gould - 2003 - ‎Fiction You're prepared to trick a man into thinking
he's gotten you pregnant, and you'll be ... Didn't you have enough trouble
convincing him he was the father last time, ...

Grandpa Tricks Family into Thinking He Died in Heartbreaking Holiday ... "How
do I trick a man into thinking he's the father" 1:29
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoIZfycTWuM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoIZfycTWuM)

Grandpa Tricks Family into Thinking He Died in Heartbreaking Holiday Ad ...
which starts with an old man ... Dad Pranks Son With Fake Hand - YouTube "How
do I trick a man into thinking he's the father" 0:42
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH_TRzlO13s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH_TRzlO13s)

See the fear in this kid's eyes when his dad tricks him into thinking he sawed
off his own father's hand ... Dad tricked into believing IVF baby was his only
to find the father was ... www.mirror.co.uk › News › Real Life Stories › IVF
Dad tricked into believing IVF baby was his only to find the father ... But
now it is a heartbreaking reminder of the cruel trick that tore nine-year-old
Simon from him. ... you love and think is your own – that is the cruelest
thing anyone can do. ... “Yet he is with her every day while I just long to
have him here. ```

~~~
logicallee
Not sure what my exact search had been but at any rate none of your search
results give practical advice into how to trick a different man into thinking
he's the father, if you're already pregnant by someone else. If you're really
intent on reproducing my results maybe add something about how you're already
pregnant. I certainly am not making up my results as I had never heard the
term paternity fraud (or some equivalent term.)

Note: parent comment is a male based on username, this is apparently just
research.

------
williamle8300
So how will people know just how vile ISIS is? Should be defer our judgement
to main stream news media to tell us?

It's absurd that the Redirect company's mission statement is to "counter
censorship" and their main job is to censor information.

------
awkwarddaturtle
The precedence this sets is so scary and shortsighted.

So a gay man ( or even a straight person ) in saudi arabia wanting to find out
more about homosexuality will be directed to anti-gay playlist which tells
them how evil gays are?

In china, instead of blocking tiannamen square searches, they'll simply
redirct it to showing what a great a idea it was?

What about religious countries? Will youtube simply redirect searches for
atheism to "anti-atheism" site?

This is the worst form of censorship as it is sneaky and exploitive. As a
liberal ( possibly former liberal ), it is shocking to me that the liberals
are the ones leading the call for censorship online, in academia and business.
It reminds me of Animal Farm/1984\. Now that liberals have used the
protections free speech to gain a lot of power/mindshare, we are trying to use
it to censor everything we find offensive.

Not only is this a horrific form of censorship, it removes any credibility we
ever had of criticizing others for their censorship.

~~~
hnbroseph
generally, 'liberal' politicians in the us are the same corporate sell-outs
that 'conservative' politicians are.

they just work in a smidge of meaningless feel-good language in the rhetoric
while doing largely nothing of consequence to actually help put food on the
table.

they glory in war and economic imperialism and servicing the oligarchy just as
much as any.

