
People who document violent extremism are being shut down in Youtube’s crackdown - pdkl95
https://boingboing.net/2019/06/06/dolphins-in-tuna-nets.html
======
maxdamantus
So our advertising overlords continue to be the ones that determine what
information we're exposed to and what products we're meant to desire.

In honour of our great advertisement-driven society, we shall click that
suggested "Up next" video on Youtube, and continue to scroll through that
infinite Facebook wall which is so miraculously calculated to maintain our
attention.

There's nothing wrong with this, right?

~~~
raxxorrax
If I leave it running long enough I always end up with mind-draining pop
music. It is a pure nightmare.

But seriously, people promoting rule changes so that advertisers can exclude
anything sinful are certainly also against anything that makes Youtube
interesting.

~~~
krapp
>But seriously, people promoting rule changes so that advertisers can exclude
anything sinful are certainly also against anything that makes Youtube
interesting.

"sin" isn't the only interesting thing about Youtube. I watch plenty of
content which is both non-violent and interesting.

~~~
raxxorrax
I choose that word to highlight similarities to deprecated moral authorities.
Not even because of the morals at hand, but because of the insufficiently
legitimized authority.

For example for Europe: sex => ok; violence => not ok

compared to the US: sex => not ok; violence => ok

What we will end up with: sex => not ok; violence => not ok

What might be best for educated civil society: sex => ok; violence => ok

Pretty reductionist, but that is where I see Youtube heading towards to.

------
brokenkebab
I do not sympathize with Google, but Boingboing looks ridiculous here. Its
contributors have been advocating for modern pro-censorship movement, which
pushes for filtering of content because of a ever growing list of allegedly
offensive things, and signs. But wait a minute, they aren't happy with the
results. What could go wrong. Now, as AI doesn't seem to cope with their
demands, what will they want as a solution? Politically correct humans
reviewing every video?

~~~
pdkl95
> what will they want as a solution?

The same thing we use when enforcing the rules of any infrastructure: publicly
accountable and transparent _due process_. These problems will continue until
big tech implements a proper _rule of law_ [1]. They will continue[2] to be
responsible for these difficult decisions as long as their platforms idea of
justice is the _rule of man_ [2].

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

[2] [https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024060/Still-Logged-In-
What-A...](https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024060/Still-Logged-In-What-AR)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_man)

~~~
brokenkebab
Not sure I clearly see your position. If platforms should abstain from
censorship unless proper legal process forces them to do so is what you mean -
I would not argue. But it's not the point of my comment. Pro-cesorship
movement never advocated for proper due process, they want quick, peferably
automatical "deplatforming".

~~~
pdkl95
> proper legal process forces them to do so

That's not what I'm talking about. The platforms need to _create_ a new form
of "legal process" where these issues are defined and adjudicated in an open
process. Google _et al_ are _de facto_ a new layer of government, and they
need to act like it. Currently, they are trying to act like a "(mostly)
benevolent dictatorship" and finding out that the hard way that you can't
actually please everyone. The proper way to handle calls for
censorship/banning/etc is to tell them to take their grievances to the
formalized judicial process and/or argue for changing that process in the
formalized, open "legislature".

For a much better explanation, I highly recommend watching Raph Koster's talk
(my previous [2]). Even though it was at GDC and initially talks about VR and
MMOs, the talk is _not actually about games_ ; it's about the ethical and
social responsibilities of creating social spaces, and the may ways we've
tried to solve their problems in the past.

------
neilv
What I think would help is if we don't use a term like "extremism", which
sounds like a term of sketchy censorship justification.

What's "extreme"? Is two men wanting to marry each other extreme? Is
advocating for freedom of abortion extreme? Is criticizing the ruling national
party extreme? Is saying that climate change is influenced by human actions
extreme? Is exposing instances of 'bad apple' abuses of power extreme? There
are a lot of people who will answer yes to all of those, in the US alone. ("Of
course we believe in freedom of speech, but certainly _extremism_ should be
censored!")

I suggest not handing totalitarian censorship tools like the vague "extremism"
to politicians and companies.

~~~
Angostura
Your preferred term is? Or are you suggesting that no content should be
removed, because of the difficulty of defining the word?

~~~
neilv
The US already has laws and other mechanisms for handling calls for violence,
etc.

For problems of manipulation, I suggest the solution is _not_ a politician or
company getting to choose who gets to manipulate, but rather, becoming more
resilient against manipulation.

~~~
krapp
Ok, but your earlier comment was that we shouldn't even use the term
"extremism," so what term would you prefer that couldn't be abused in the same
way?

~~~
neilv
Use existing terms and mechanisms. For example, "conspiracy to commit murder",
and the mechanisms we have for dealing with that.

~~~
krapp
But that's what Google is doing. "extremism" is an existing term, and their
demonetization and moderation mechanisms exist as well.

If you're suggesting Google should be prevented from moderating content that
doesn't meet a strict definition of legal harm... fair enough, but there's
nothing stopping laws from being passed which would justify Google's policies.

~~~
CompanionCuuube
Remember the context of the discussion, which was the objection to the
vagueness of the term.

Would it be okay to substitute "Five 9s of uptime" in an SLA with "solid
uptime" and call it good?

------
Shivetya
tl;dr I hate censorship. if its illegal then prosecute them, but this isn't
about legality

They have pretty much blocked historical videos containing much about NAZI
Germany as well. [1] Going to be real annoying to lose some classic comics
which definitely would not pass the hate/sensitivity crowd today.

I understand the concern youtube has but once you go down this path you pretty
much are rewriting history. that is what they need to understand, the past is
exactly that, a representation of the views and outlooks of the people and
places depicted.

If this continues how long before other countries demand to have content their
censors deem offensive removed? Why would we be in position to tell them, no
we don't find it offensive, when we don't give them the same right in return.

You can be offended all you want but that does not mean you get to prevent
others from viewing it.

With regards to new content postings they obviously need a system which first
includes trusted accounts, then their algorithm, then an challenge and
remediation system that is well documented and enforced.

[1][https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/06/youtube-b...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/06/youtube-
blocks-history-teachers-uploading-archive-videos-of-hitler)

~~~
threeseed
Set up your own website and host the content. Nobody is removing that ability.

You just don't have the right to tell a private company what content they must
allow.

~~~
jmkni
Hosting video isn't cheap, especially when the traffic picks up.

While in theory you aren't losing that ability, in practice most people can't
afford to.

~~~
kthejoker2
So .. Forcing other people to pay to host your "not cheap" content is okay?

Maybe I can use my neighbor's power to operate a giant billboard with my
personal views? I mean, it's not cheap, but I really think my POV deserves the
largest possible platform.

Anything less is effectively my neighbor censoring me.

~~~
jmkni
I'm not trying to say that anything is/isn't ok, I'm directly replying to:

> Set up your own website and host the content. Nobody is removing that
> ability.

In practice, things might not be that simple.

~~~
kthejoker2
What is your proposed alternative?

And this is a strawman anyway, there are plenty of sites that let you post
video content without these same sorts of policies.

And if they don't have the network effects of YouTube, boo hoo.

------
threeseed
They are largely being demonetised not shut down. And for good reason.

Advertisers do not want to be associated with violent content. Regardless of
whether the content is serving some greater cause or not.

~~~
raxxorrax
And it would be good to listen to sensibilities of advertisers for a platform
that exists because of creative content of its users? I think not, Tim.

~~~
dageshi
Does everyone have a right to advertisements before their content?

~~~
raxxorrax
Whoever pays creates is basically the fundamental rule I commit my life to and
that I try to see realized for everyone. People think I am an asshole, but I
believe I am merely misunderstood.

------
mikorym
So in short, they are demonetising/shutting down also the ones trying to
counter violent extremism by proper record holding and public accountability?

~~~
imglorp
It's a fine line between portrayal and promoting, such a fine line that some
people might not see where that distinction lies and then mistake one intent
for the other. A truly neutral documentary will present the facts and lead you
to understand the participants mindset, even if you're not in agreement.

I can't imagine some bot will get this right, but I feel we're morally
obligated to retain the material or we'll get even worse at telling the
difference.

~~~
DarkWiiPlayer
I think the whole point is that some people don't want you to understand what
the others think. In 2019 even empathizing with certain people, or trying to
follow the logical steps that lead them to their views is considered a sin by
some people.

~~~
0815test
> In 2019 even empathizing with certain people, or trying to follow the
> logical steps that lead them to their views is considered a sin by some
> people.

It's almost like we're sliding back to 1935. There is no shared understanding
of the fact that empathizing with people - _all_ people, regardless of their
diversity - and trying to understand their views is what leads you to the most
_correct_ views over time. _It 's why the modern West won, and its adversaries
lost._ I'm starting to think that some people really do hate us for this
freedom - they want to be _told_ what to think, and find the very idea of
intellectual curiosity or openness to be inherently offensive.

~~~
andrenth
The people who hate this freedom want to _tell_ others what to think.

------
torgian
Looks to be time to use other video platforms then?

------
qrbLPHiKpiux
There is a bigger problem - the reliance on someone else (YouTube, et al).

When the masses rely on one person, then that one person changes his mind, you
get what you get.

YouTube, really, is just someone else’s computer. He doesn’t like how it’s
being used, he fixes that.

I’m not surprised here.

There has to be a shift to self-reliance with this sort of thing.

------
stunt
I wonder if any of decentralized internet projects are building something
equivalent to Youtube or not!

~~~
DarkWiiPlayer
I read a while ago that there's a platform to access videos in some block
chain, similar to youtube. Don't know what became of that though.

~~~
stackola
Bitchute[1] works with WebTorrents, maybe that's what you mean.

[1] [https://www.bitchute.com/](https://www.bitchute.com/)

------
narag
There are two contradictory explanations in the article: that the channel was
removed by "faulty automatic moderation" vs. "prompted the company to play a
game of both-sidesism" so it was done on purpose.

------
bartimus
When running ads, Youtube allows you to target certain audiences. Perhaps they
should just allow people to target (or block) certain content creators in a
similar manner.

Choose target video controversial threshold: 0 =O===== 100

~~~
Fjolsvith
Who gets to rank the videos?

~~~
bartimus
I suppose you could look at the number of views / comments / likes / dislikes
ratios to determine a level of controversy. Youtube viewers are already
grouped into various audiences. So their behavior towards certain video's
tells something about the video.

------
SuoDuanDao
Anyone got a favourite Youtube-alternative they'd like to plug?

~~~
Fjolsvith
[https://d.tube/](https://d.tube/)

------
YayamiOmate
Regardless of platform and motivation, there is a more general issue.

There is no fine well defined line between public documentation and promotion.
Raising awarness is a form of promotion. Even if material is ultimately
objective. There is no going around it, so it's always going to be subjective
and leave someone unhappy, either for material being present or not present.

------
mkettn
If Youtube blocks their content, they can move to another video hosting site
or start their own. No big deal nowadays.

~~~
DarkWiiPlayer
Not for the things described in the article, no. If you really just want to
document things, you can host videos by yourself and just offer them for
download.

What makes youtube important isn't that they host your videos, but that they
get people to watch them.

------
bronzeage
censorship doesn't work and will never work. if you cut someone's tongue you
only prove you're afraid of what he has to say.

the best solution is to fight them back by showing them the opposite ideas.
don't censor Nazis, put as advertisements and suggestions to positive content
highlighting why they are wrong.

~~~
DanBC
Everything we have shows that this is untrue.

When you remove their funding - by demonetizing them - their spread slows.

~~~
bronzeage
I'm all in for demonetising them, just don't remove them. you're losing the
opportunity to change someone's mind when you shut their mouth. instead of
removing them, the platforms need to provide with ways to counter them. I'm
taking about putting 'advertisements' against their ideas in their videos, in
the automatic suggestions, everywhere.

you need to understand that the people who are convinced of these ideas are
easily manipulated emotionally. All you really need to do is offer them a
meaning and a feeling of belonging to a group. they don't care about facts,
you need to emphasize about the group's betrayal to them.

------
DarkWiiPlayer
Never heared of boingboing.net, but after reading

> Steven Crowder's hate channel

I don't think it's a very trustworthy source of information.

~~~
bencoder
> Never heared of boingboing.net

That's a genuine surprise! You can read about it here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boing_Boing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boing_Boing)

> > Steven Crowder's hate channel

I don't see this phrase in the article, perhaps it was removed. But,
regardless, it seems quite apt in this context:
[https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1134264395717103617](https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1134264395717103617)

> I don't think it's a very trustworthy source of information

Use of a single, seemingly accurate, phrase seems like an odd reason to
distrust a source

~~~
DarkWiiPlayer
> I don't see this phrase in the article

It was in another article, which is directly linked in this one.

> But, regardless, it seems quite apt in this context

No it's not. He's just being a conservative asshole.

> Use of a single, seemingly accurate, phrase seems like an odd reason to
> distrust a source

It's not just the single phrase, but what you can extrapolate from it. Calling
someone a hate channel is a pretty serious deal these days, and just throwing
such an accusation around like that shows that at the very least whoever wrote
that article doesn't in the slightest bit intend to show the complete picture.
And no, I won't trust a source that I caught once telling only half the story
on things where I wouldn't even know.

------
tempodox
When we had nation states, we had free speech. Now we have companies and
surveillance capitalism and we're back in the dark ages. Centuries of civic
progress, payed for with blood, sold for the consumption of crappy content and
evaporated in just two decades. Looks like Enlightenment has failed after all.

------
hackerbabz
Why does anyone think this needs to be an all or nothing approach?

First step: remove the literal nazis. Nazis are bad and anyone who says
otherwise is bad. Anyone who screams, “censorship!” About removing nazis is
defending nazis.

Second step: Evaluate what worked and what didn’t work about removing nazis.
Correct mistakes.

Third step: Pick the next most evil topic after nazis and repeat.

~~~
Grue3
Fourth step: when they came for me there was no one left to speak up.

~~~
hackerbabz
No. They came for the nazis. There is no slope from nazis to good people.

~~~
Grue3
There is no objective definition of good. To someone you're a good person. To
someone else you're as bad as a nazi. That's the real slippery slope: from
benevolent censor to malevolent.

~~~
hackerbabz
I don't murder people, so...no. That is incorrect. Someone can say I'm as bad
as a nazi, but they would be incorrect, so their opinion would not matter.

~~~
tilolebo
So murder is the limit? But not all nazis murdered people.

~~~
hackerbabz
The nazis killed many philosophers. I wish you luck.

