An update on our commitment to fight terror content online

https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/08/an-update-on-our-commitment-to-fight.html

by j2kun • 9 years ago

122 225 9 years ago

youtube.googleblog.com

falcolas4• 9 years ago

When people search for sensitive keywords on YouTube, they will be redirected towards a playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages.

Sigh. The chance for overlap with educational videos is going to be pretty damned high. Just like past efforts to stop porn have also stopped a large number of sex education sites.

Also, how are they judging accuracy? That's one key bit of information they're missing here. What's the escalation path for videos improperly caught up in the automated sweeps? Their existing copyright flagging mechanisms shows the inadequacy of their automated systems to date. Who reviews the human flags? The Alex Mauer YouTube debacle (a contracted worker taking down let's play videos to put pressure on a developer unrelated to the videos) has shown that the power is too far in the accuser's hands.

forapurpose7• 9 years ago

past efforts to stop porn have also stopped a large number of sex education sites

That raises an interesting example: YouTube has effectively blocked porn, and I haven't heard anyone complain.

naturalgradient2• 9 years ago

'More experts: Of course, our systems are only as good as the the data they’re based on. Over the past weeks, we have begun working with more than 15 additional expert NGOs and institutions through our Trusted Flagger program, including the Anti-Defamation League, the No Hate Speech Movement, and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue'

This makes me cringe. Every single one of these organisations consists of people with specific political views of acceptable and not acceptable content.

In Europe, the 'no hate speech' idea has very quickly expanded the concept of hate speech to include any rightwing opinion around certain topics (mostly religion and immigration related).

More people feel disenfranchised and excluded from the discourse, more grandstanding around fighting hate speech where the existence of countless organisations, consultants, experts and so forth can only be justified by uncovering more hate speech. Quite literally the growth of their economy requires expansion of the concept. The divide continues.

civilian2• 9 years ago

Yeah, this sucks. Another example of this is Southern Poverty Law Center's "Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists". They include Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which is disgusting of the SPLC to do. https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-...

sudosteph• 9 years ago

Ouch, that article really hurt my respect for SPL. Nawaz especially, through his discussions with Sam Harris, really opened my eyes to the struggles of moderate and progressive Muslims when it comes to reforming Islam.

Nawaz was himself radicalized as a young man, and much of his work today is around preventing other young Muslims from taking that path. It disgusts me that a man with such a important perspective is carelessly labeled anti-Muslim.

Check out the audiobook discussion with Sam Harris if you haven't, "Islam and the future of Tolerance". It was a good, respectful discussion between two very different viewpoints, and Nawaz made very insightful and logical arguments for mainstream Islam being capable of undertaking certain anti-radicalization reforms and why those matter.

forapurpose7• 9 years ago

Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Why are these people necessarily wrong to include?

I did a search and I found many articles on the issue, suggesting it's a semi-famous controversy, but no reliable sources (all partisan and either untrustworthy or unknown, from the far left and far right).

matthewmacleod5• 9 years ago

Neither Maajid Nawaz nor Ayaan Hirsi Ali are particularly reliable or impartial commentators, to the extent that i'm surprised you'd find it 'disgusting' to describe either of them as 'Anti-Muslim Extremists' - the both almost by definition are.

darawk• 9 years ago

Couldn't agree more. This is extremely dangerous, and extremely poorly thought out on Google's part.

CoreXtreme• 9 years ago

Well, they can only flag the videos. It will still go through Youtube's review system if anyone appeals.

Bartweiss• 9 years ago

What we've seen over and over again with DRM is that that's enough to shut down content, though.

First, because the review system is unreliable - it's prone to acting defensively in the interests of the host (Google) and making the fastest defensible decision, regardless of accuracy.

Second, because the review system is slow. Even 24-hour turnaround is slow in a setting where display rankings risk exponential falloff if they don't get traction quickly. A brief delay on a Facebook post or Youtube video can be a death sentence in terms of engagement.

I'm not sure this system will have problems; "input from" doesn't mean "giving control to". But I certainly wouldn't want to rely on the review system as a reason to trust that nothing legitimate will be restricted.

Animats• 9 years ago

I was about to post that. Those groups have very specific agendas. They shouldn't be allowed to block articles which disagree with their agenda.

Here's Dabiq, ISIS's propaganda magazine.[1] It's well-produced and in English. See what the other side wants. There are the usual rants: "We ask Allah to support the mujāhidīn of the Islamic State against the agents of the tawāghīt and the crusaders until the banner of the Khilāfah is raised high above Istanbul and Vatican City". Their strongest ire is raised against Arabs who oppose ISIS. The West is just the enemy, but Islamists who oppose them are committing apostasy. They're opposed to democracy on principle. Allah must rule, and that means autocratic rule by religious leaders. "Legislation is not but for Allah".

There's a concern that some people will be taken in by this stuff. That's only a problem for people who haven't seen enough extremist material to be able to evaluate it. There's a certain similarity to all that stuff, along the lines of "We're good, because God is on our side, and we have to kill the other guys because they're evil." This message is available in Christian, Jewish, and Islamic flavors. Kids should see all of those in school, to immunize them against such messages.

Will "trusted flaggers" be allowed to make Dabiq inaccessable?

("Maybe they is not evil. Maybe they is just enemies." - Poul Anderson)

[1] https://clarionproject.org/islamic-state-isis-isil-propagand...

aaron-lebo4• 9 years ago

People are taken in by this stuff. You don't have the Manchester suicide bombing without it.

It's not an abstract issue, it actually happens.

forapurpose7• 9 years ago

Those groups have very specific agendas.

I'm not sure what that means; doesn't every group have an agenda? I think the implication is that these groups' agendas are no better than any other groups' agendas. I think that's clearly wrong; we can't take politically correct relativism and openness to a logical extreme - we must make distinctions between good and bad (though carefully reasoned ones). Though I agree we should be careful, and no group or agenda is perfect, the agendas of hate groups are not just as good as the ADL's, for example.

They shouldn't be allowed to block articles which disagree with their agenda.

Is that the standard used by Google?

jacquesm• 9 years ago

Kids should see all of those in school, to immunize them against such messages.

You'd have to go about that very carefully not to accidentally re-inforce a message that has already been planted and ending up making things worse rather than better.

nappy2• 9 years ago

Will "trusted flaggers" be allowed to make Dabiq inaccessable?

The answer is no. This post is about YouTube. Presumably a magazine won't be impacted. Also, new content is not being removed, but rather:

"If we find that these videos don’t violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes."

Which is ironically not dissimilar from your suggestion that hateful and ignorant views be taught in context to school children.

You comment reminds me of those news stories where the headline is a question. When you read the article, the answer is always, "No."

Vinnl• 9 years ago

See what the other side wants.

It's a shame (but understandable) that we're only doing that once they start raping, torturing and killing...

whipoodle• 9 years ago

I know what you mean, and I don't like some of those groups either, but speech and the limiting of it is an unavoidably political issue. Objectivity isn't truly an option here.

biggerbistro3• 9 years ago

I wonder if our respected peers on the Left will ever decide that their politics are the ones supported by "The System" and that they are perhaps not the rebels they thought they were?

When Google and Facebook (among others) are explicitly enforcing censorship favoring the leftist worldview it really makes me wonder who stands to benefit and whether it is done with good intentions.

ThrustVectoring2• 9 years ago

Getting their politics injected into "The System" was an explicit policy goal of the Left. The term typically used is "entryism".

forapurpose7• 9 years ago

I don't believe being against hate is a "leftist" worldview; it's a widely accepted and healthy one. In a way, you agree:

their politics are the ones supported by "The System" and that they are perhaps not the rebels they thought they were?

Certainly there is a very well-established and long history, and continuing practice, of prejudice in government against (almost any group besides white Christian males, as a shorthand for a long list). There is also now a countervailing force, protecting the freedoms and asserting the interests of the oppressed groups. The existence of both forces can't seriously be questioned.

But going back to my first sentence: Really, that's the fundamental debate going on in this HN thread and in many others: Some assert, implicitly, that the hate groups are just another point of view, and that they are inherently no better or worse than other POVs. Others, including Google, disagree.

Sometimes that argument is made using extreme relativism or political correctness: All POVs have the same merit and deserve equal treatment; it's politically incorrect to discriminate at all. While that's an interesting and valuable philosophical discussion - how do we distinguish perfectly between good and bad - we can and must still distinguish between them. We don't have to wait for the perfect philosophical solution.

But we can approach the question with reason: First, I believe that many (not all) arguing that the hate groups should be heard simply support the hate groups - it has nothing to do with public interest or freedom of speech; probably that's true on the other side too. Second, a more reasoned argument: Why should we tolerate groups who don't tolerate others? It breaks a fudamental social contract of free societies: If you want me to respect you, you must respect me.

cmahler72• 9 years ago

Fighting WrongThink is double plus good comrade!

In unrelated news Jordan Peterson, a University of Toronto professor with 350k subscribers was banned today. He's about as centrist as you can get but occasionally speaks against marxism and postmoderism. Apparently not being communist is now terrorism according to youtube.

tehwebguy3• 9 years ago

And reinstated within a day. That's how reporting content works at scale - it takes a minute to get it right.

zimpenfish11• 9 years ago

He's about as centrist as you can get but occasionally speaks against marxism and postmoderism.

He also occasionally says transphobic things about gender pronouns.

forapurpose7• 9 years ago

In Europe, the 'no hate speech' idea has very quickly expanded the concept of hate speech to include any rightwing opinion around certain topics (mostly religion and immigration related).

Can you provide examples of this?

matthewmacleod5• 9 years ago

In Europe, the 'no hate speech' idea has very quickly expanded the concept of hate speech to include any rightwing opinion around certain topics (mostly religion and immigration related).

This is an outright lie. There are an astonishing plurality of mainstream, right-wing views about religion and immigration in every European country.

throw13578• 9 years ago

There is a big right wing, but it has faced repression. Being classified as hate speakers, with all that that entails, is one of those aspects.

bjourne• 9 years ago

The ADL, which fights Antisemitism, has also included advocacy for Israel in their agenda. See f.e this report in which several peace groups are wrongly accused of being "anti-Israel": https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf...

The ADL is of course free to propagate for whatever they want, but it being included in the Trusted Flagger program might lead to more news stories like this one: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/09/facebook-blocks-accoun...

The reason for mentioning this is that it is not only right-wing ideas that will be censored. Groups working for ending the occupation and advocating peace between Israel and Palestine are generally associated with the left-wing. They will equally be at risk of being silenced with programs like this.

gtufano• 9 years ago

In Europe, the 'no hate speech' idea has very quickly expanded the concept of hate speech to include any rightwing opinion around certain topics (mostly religion and immigration related).

That's because last time rightwing speeches about religion and races (that's "immigration-related" really) were permitted and tolerated in Europe the result has been WWII and the Shoa, probably.

biggerbistro3• 9 years ago

You could just as easily say "the last time leftwing speeches about equality and social justice were permitted and tolerated in Russia the result has been The Cold War and the gulags". Neither side has a clean history and it is quite unfair to deny either side participation just because of past mistakes.

Iv• 9 years ago

I see many ex-muslim atheist complaining that their calls for critical thinking is often successfully flaged as hate speech and removed from Facebook and Youtube.

And yes, being in Europe, the "no hate speech" laws make me cringe, even if they are not really abused nowadays, censorship is censorship and seeing "my guys" doing it does not make me particularly comfortable.

throwawaymanbot2• 9 years ago

If you dont like this, its not hard to get your own video codecs for your own website, and stream your own videos/content. Google owns a private platform, its their rules.

dilap8• 9 years ago

Awesome, just what I've always wanted: Machine learning and unelected, unaccountable groups of experts to tell me what videos I'm allowed to comment on.

So happy to see free speech is alive & kicking in the west.

sqeaky10• 9 years ago

Its Youtube, not a public space and not something government controlled. They are free to say what is and isn't on their system. What if you made a system and someone took that from you and they demanded that ISIS be given equal rights to people with your political leanings?

Don't tolerate intolerance. Thats not tolerance is spineless.

word_gamebdbdbd2• 9 years ago

I won't tolerate your intolerance towards ISIS. See how it's just a meaningless word game?

ekianjo3• 9 years ago

Don't tolerate intolerance. Thats not tolerance is spineless.

What does that even mean? You can still have speech you dont agree with, nobody is forcing you to see it.

raghavtoshniwal• 9 years ago

Although I agree with the whole YouTube deciding what they want on their platform narrative, the argument loses some steam when talking about edge cases. There are a lot of conflicts where the distinction between quelling extremist content and removing anti-establishment rhetoric is a thin one. Once YouTube starts content censorship of any kind, they might quickly find themselves having to pick sides in somewhat grey areas. Making such value judgements and making them consistently becomes a challenge.

dilap8• 9 years ago

But I think Youtube is a public space, one of the most important ones there is right now. The fact that it is owned by a large corporation rather than a government is immaterial.

I also think the power Google of today wields over my life is probably comparable to the power the government of 1789 wielded over its citizens.

Is it really wise to so readily accept arbitrary behavior from Google just because they're a private company? At a certain point, companies become big and powerful enough that I think it's reasonable to hold them to similar standards as governments.

jimmaswell• 9 years ago

There should be some kind of line drawn when a service is something people are essentially forced to rely on or is so ubiquitous. "Common carrier" phone companies aren't allowed to selectively censor your use of them, and it seems reasonable that something the likes of Facebook should maybe have to be held to a similar standard when it's so ubiquitous and a major part of modern communication. There are also precedents such as malls not being allowed to limit speech on the premises in California, along with some other states having similar enforcement of certain rights on some kinds of private property.

MrZongle23• 9 years ago

"Don't tolerate intolerance."

Sure. Just define "intolerance".

tanilama• 9 years ago

Youtube have some of the worst comments that I have encountered on the internet. Won't miss this feature if it gets disabled for all videos.

Retric• 9 years ago

Depends on the video, some comments are surprisingly good.

colejohnson662• 9 years ago

You’re watching the wrong videos

blowski• 9 years ago

I honestly don't know what to do about this situation. I don't even know if it is a situation, or just some drama whipped up by the right wing press.

I'd love to see some real stats. How many videos are we talking about here? How many views do they get?

yalue2• 9 years ago

That's the thing, though. Extremist videos are already against the rules, can be reported by users, and removed if the reports have merit.

Whether it's exaggerated "by the right-wing press" or not (I find it concerning despite being left-leaning and not the press), I don't like the notion of any politically-aligned parties having an outsized role in deciding what's "appropriate".

losteverything• 9 years ago

I agree. Numbers and absolutes really help.

turc1656• 9 years ago

“When people search for sensitive keywords on YouTube, they will be redirected towards a playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages.”

How much you wanna bet that “feature” is going to be used to alter/redirect the video results for other things like political opinions that Google doesn’t approve of? I foresee the right wing extremists like Breitbart and InfoWars getting affected by this. Not that I like either of those, but I think this is going to be a super sneaky way to curate the feeds that people see and the videos that are searchable online. Twitter did something recently that was very similar to this and people were finding that their followers weren't seeing their tweets.

lstamour• 9 years ago

I'd take that bet. There's a big difference between Google and YouTube, look at how they each handle copyright. YouTube pulls things, but Google links to DMCA takedowns.

And extremist content should be harder to find, regardless of source. There's a big difference between extremist content and less violent political discourse, though. And YouTube as a hosting platform vs. hosting your video elsewhere.

That all said, the Google OneBox is already an example of altering search results to display what Google thinks you meant based on potentially slanted sources on the Internet.

Duwensatzaj2• 9 years ago

You'd lose the bet - it's already happening. https://qz.com/666871/german-viewers-of-immigrant-hating-you...

yalue2• 9 years ago

I would say that this is the only use for this particular feature, because actual calls to violence and extremist messages are already against the rules on youtube and can simply be reported by users.

Like you, I also find the Alex Jones and his ilk to be disturbing and harmful, and consider it a bad sign that people like you and me need to qualify any statement against censorship by explicitly saying we aren't part of the American far right.

aptidude187• 9 years ago

Interesting thought. I agree, this kind of reasoning seems to be the flip side of the same coin. Meaning every opinion that differs from the 'mainstream' or even from what mighty Google considers to be morally or ethically wrong can be just cleverly labeled in a manner that allows them to redirect an individual to what Google thinks is right. 'Follow our politics and our opinions' - And who would be able to control if Google is abiding by the rules, when there are like billions of such difficult decisions to be made on a daily basis?

Duwensatzaj2• 9 years ago

That already happened in Germany - https://qz.com/666871/german-viewers-of-immigrant-hating-you...

"To target immigrant-hating videos, the room-sharing service uses keywords on YouTube’s ad platform that are associated with far-right content and anti-immigration groups, such as Pegida, Germany’s anti-Islamist group, and its leader Lutz Bachmann. Other keywords include “refugees out” (“asylanten raus”), “refugees terrorists,” and “the truth about refugees.”

A German can’t watch a anti-immigrant YouTube video associated with a keyword without first seeing a 30-second preroll ad from Refugees Welcome."

tehwebguy3• 9 years ago

No, it didn't. Some org is just paying for ads.

If you want to make an Immigrants Not Welcome ad and pay for it to appear before videos with terms you choose you are free to do so.

flukus• 9 years ago

After the right wing extremists are forced onto their own platforms, how much do you want to bet that their newfound bubble will make them much more extreme and much less likely to see something like a debunking video? It just plays into the persecution complex.

tnone3• 9 years ago

Slate star codex highlighted this dynamic very well here:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative...

"Neutral" is no longer neutral, and if you keep telling people they are bigots undeservedly, they will leave and set up their own media, with blackjack and hookers, creating real extremism.

azinman23• 9 years ago

I see a lot of anti-expert pro-speech comments. That’s great and all at the theoretical government law side of things, but YouTube is a private organization that _is_ being used as a platform by organizations like ISIS to radicalize random individuals who then go out and kill innocent people. Should Google allow these videos to be on equal footing with funny cat videos?

bmmayer12• 9 years ago

What do you mean by 'equal footing.' The footing that videos like these stand on is only as strong as the support that they have from viewers. We live in a marketplace of ideas. People who support ISIS are not going to stop because Google takes the videos down, but it does start a dangerous precedent to censor any content Google doesn't like.

aaron-lebo4• 9 years ago

Radicalization is real. It's why terrorism works. If a private service wants to restrict videos of torture killings and beheadings followed by propaganda, why not?

Those shouldn't be tolerated any more than videos that show torture of animals or abuse of children.

Seems like a reasonable standard and not necessarilya slippery slope?

tribby3• 9 years ago

but YouTube is a private organization that _is_ being used as a platform by organizations like ISIS to radicalize random individuals who then go out and kill innocent people

by that logic they shouldn't allow US military recruitment videos either

CryptoFascist• 9 years ago

One of these things is not like the other.

azernik• 9 years ago

Most people do not see ISIS and the US military as morally equivalent.

dilap8• 9 years ago

To me YouTube being a private organization is beside the point; I would like the dominant mediums of communication of our era to be open and free, not restricted and censored.

It makes very little practical difference if the censorship comes from a large company or a government if at the end of the day you can't say what you want.

And yes:

I do believe in the basic free speech bargain. I do think it's better to have ISIS recruitment videos (and anti-ISIS videos, and everything else) up freely than to have some organization sitting in judgement of what's "acceptable" and not.

Of course it's a trade-off. There is a cost to social harmony from free speech (& democracy!). China seems to be doing pretty well with a very different approach; they value social harmony highly.

But I was raised like a good little patriotic American boy, so I value free speech pretty damn highly, and I find this policy misguide and scary.

Also, let's not kid ourselves -- ISIS is just an excuse. I guaran-fucking-tee this policy will be used to stifle all kinds of objectionable, non-politcally-correct videos.

aaron-lebo4• 9 years ago

Do you believe that videos of 3-year olds executing prisoners is really worth broadcasting? Old men getting their head stabbed with a bayonet until they die? Pilots burned alive?

I'm all for free speech, but why should Google distribute that for free so we can have more lone wolf terrorist attacks?

soundwave106• 9 years ago

Well, the private organization thing is really the issue in a nutshell: Google is not a public space, no matter how large it is. What drives them is revenue, not free speech.

Google is a company backed by advertising. Youtube has faced very noticeable controversy from advertisers (including a "boycott" -- https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-a...) over "hate speech" and other offensive content.

In my opinion, this update is a direct response to that issue (the paragraph on "de-monetizing" content that is found unacceptable, but still within content guidelines, suggests to me as much). This is all about placating advertisers, who didn't want an advertisement for Brand XYZ appearing to ISIS recruitment videos and the like. I can't really think of a way to get around this -- to do so, you are basically asking Google to force brands to pay for content they find objectionable. (Which they won't do, in the end.)

groby_b3• 9 years ago

You never had the right to a platform for your speech, starting day one of the country you profess to love. "Freedom of speech" was always intended as freedom from the doctrine of seditious libel, freedom from the government shielding itself against inconvenient speech.

There is a reason every single state constitution has provisions on the abuse of speech, and that is because we always saw the potential for this. (Why not the constitution? Because the Federal government has no jurisdiction over speech. It's up to the states. See e.g. Federalist #84)

This idea that "freedom of speech" means "I can say whatever I want, and any and all platforms must amplify what I say" is a completely misguided idea that has no basis in reality, the constitution, or even the debates the founders had.

snerbles4• 9 years ago

It's effectively a privately-owned public space, due to the network effects. Simply presenting the ISIS vs cat videos dichotomy is intellectually dishonest - it ignores the subtler effects of a politically motivated private entity becoming an arbiter of speech.

For instance, Jordan Peterson's Google account was suspended today for "violations of terms of service", with no other reason given and no official channel for recourse. It was only reinstated after news of the ban began gaining traction on twitter and other outlets. What will happen to smaller entities caught in the net, with less social clout to defend themselves?

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/89244909895099187...

reitanqild5• 9 years ago

Thats pretty scary.

This is almost drumhead court martial for peoples online personas. :-/

Camillo2• 9 years ago

The mention of ISIS is a smokescreen. Even though terrorism was used as an early justification of it, in practice the "hate speech" label is almost always used for far less violent ideas and people. In fact, it is more likely to be used against liberal Muslims than against Islamic terrorists! (See [0])

In fact, from an anti-terrorism perspective, it may be more effective to leave ISIS's videos up (and keep tabs on their most frequent watchers, if anything). It can even have direct benefits in terms of intelligence gathering (e.g. the locations shown can be identified).

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14903754

matthewmacleod5• 9 years ago

In fact, it is more likely to be used against liberal Muslims than against Islamic terrorists! (See [0])

That is not a reference that supports your claim.

Camillo2• 9 years ago

"Terrorism is an attack on open societies, and addressing the threat posed by violence and hate is a critical challenge for us all." [0]

"Over the past weeks, we have begun working with more than 15 additional expert NGOs and institutions through our Trusted Flagger program, including the Anti-Defamation League, the No Hate Speech Movement, and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue."

Note the seamless transition from terrorism, to hate, to hate speech. Therefore, to protect open societies, we have to put censors to work on our users. How far we got in a couple of blog posts!

Note that the "No Hate Speech Movement" is "A youth campaign of the Council of Europe"[1] (so, not a movement at all), and the Council of Europe is an intergovernmental organization [2], so these are quite literally government censors.

Speaking of openness, is the full list of NGOs participating in the Trusted Flagger program available anywhere?

[0] https://www.blog.google/topics/google-europe/four-steps-were...

[1] https://www.nohatespeechmovement.org/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe

bmmayer12• 9 years ago

This needs more visibility. Behind many a do-gooder trying to rid the world of 'hate' is a well-funded organization or government with an agenda trying to make cynical end run around free speech.

simonsarris• 9 years ago

Is this why they disabled Jordan Peterson's Youtube today?

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/89244921355616665...

(University of Toronto Psychology Professor who makes popular YouTube videos and draws ire from a lot of SJW types)

~~~

In a way, Google is announcing to startups that making a YouTube successor/killer is still possible. As they degrade their own service, they open up more space for newcomers and competitors.

steven777400• 9 years ago

Although it could have been coincidence, it does seem like Google is making a statement with the temporary suspension of Peterson's account that these initiatives are clearly targeted at users posted politically incorrect content.

eanzenberg• 9 years ago

Isn't it interesting how over time what is considered the "public square" turned from being owned by gov't (free-speech rules) to private industry (no need to uphold free-speech). Sure you can go run to your local city hall and say whats on your mind but no one's going to listen. The internet allowed for widespread dissemination of views/ideas but as time goes on it will be more and more regulated by private companies.

throwaway91111• 9 years ago

You know at its most literal—ie terrorism is the use of terror to gain leverage—this would imply fake news is the problem.

This is just pr fluff.

avaer2• 9 years ago

It just hit me that if I want to get an accurate view of what people think of a contentious topic, I can't trust Google or Youtube as a gateway anymore. I simply don't know what machines or "experts" have decided to hide from me.

waqf• 9 years ago

You never could: any "consensus" you see, the media consensus, the Google search consensus, the Facebook consensus, the Youtube consensus, the consensus of people on the street in your hometown, all have their own biases (social, technological and statistical even if you can escape the political) and they always had. The best you can hope for is to be aware of them.

avaer2• 9 years ago

It's not about consensus, it's about verifiability. When the president justifies policy because group X believes Y, I could theoretically fact-check what X actually says -- we unfortunately live in a post-truth world where that's a necessary check on democracy. I can't do that if Google has decided X is too unpleasant to be heard.

DanielBMarkham• 9 years ago

Google has a commitment to appear to fight terror content online. They do not have an actual commitment to fight it.

They have no independent definition of what terrorism is. They have made no statements about how any one definition of terrorism is better or worse than any other one. They've done nothing proactively to identify terrorist or prevent terrorist acts.

Instead, they're trying to do something without actually being responsible for it. They've gathered together their own pack of cool kids and those folks have been tasked with telling Google what to do. In this manner the company actually stands for nothing more than "We've tried to cover all the bases of groups that are important to us that might complain"

That's not taking a stand. That's just an odd combination of shrewdness, weaseling, and self-congratulation. Par for the course for big SV companies. Some huge companies will control what kinds of political posters go up in its halls -- an act with nothing more than symbolic meaning -- while cooperating with dictatorships that use their services to hunt down dissidents. Related: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/16/how-social-media-helps-d...

As tech folks, we've been congratulating ourselves way too much and taking way too little of an honest look at what actual impact we're having. That's gotta stop.

joshfraser• 9 years ago

The strength of your convictions are only tested at the extremes. You can't say you believe in free speech if that only includes speech you like.

DanBC3• 9 years ago

The US extremist version of free speech isn't shared anywhere else in the world. Most countries are happy with their limited version of free speech.

And even the US has limits on what you can publish - see for example the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Crush_Video_Prohibition...

snerbles4• 9 years ago

It's interesting that some consider the notion of freedom as extremism, with all the attached implications.

Here lies individualist-collectivist divide.

DarkKomunalec4• 9 years ago

The US extremist version of free speech isn't shared anywhere else in the world.

It's not law anywhere else in the world, but many people share it, myself included.

Do not confuse law with ideals - after all, google acting as a censor is perfectly legal even in the 'free speech extremist' US.

Grue3• 9 years ago

Most countries are happy with the lack of free speech.

There, fixed it for you. There are a lot of human rights "most countries" have historically opposed.

kgwgk• 9 years ago

I'm sure the writers of the constitution didn't imagine how much power the commerce clause would give the federal government.

matthewmacleod5• 9 years ago

This is a weak argument. It is possible to both believe in free speech – that is, the right for anybody to publish whatever views they want – while simultaneously deciding that you do not want to publish those views yourself, nor support the publishing of them.

golemotron• 9 years ago

That is certainly true but it uncovers the issue of whether we consider free speech a value or not. Google is saying that it isn't.

It's going to get very problematic. When big players squeeze the Overton Window it becomes an Overton Bubble. We'll be blindsided by more electoral decisions that are puzzling due to preference falsification.

ruleabidinguser• 9 years ago

Meanwhile this has disappeared from the front page of HN despite having a higher score than plenty of other similarly aged posts on the front page

It's no secret that the moderation here disagrees with the consensus formed in these comments. It's definitely odd.

euyyn2• 9 years ago

I just opened it from my frontpage.

BenjiWiebe• 9 years ago

So did I. Maybe his/her ISP is filtering content on HN's front page. /s

DanBC3• 9 years ago

moderation

I'm not a mod, but I'm pretty sure moderators didn't touch this.

mythrwy• 9 years ago

Evil censorship and PC brainwashing run amok?

or is this really

"An update on our commitment to avoid expensive lawsuits and pesky Internet pitchfork campaigns by appearing to do something about content some people find objectionable"?

I haven't decided yet.

spaginal• 9 years ago

Historically, speech isn't censored to protect people, it is done to protect institutions or governments.

The slippery slope we are careening down is getting pretty troubling.

rdtsc• 9 years ago

Extremists and terrorists seek to attack and erode not just our security, but also our values; the very things that make our societies open and free

I wish they'd articulate what values those are.

When a company the size of Google embarks on "preventing and stopping" extremists I am a little leery. Terrorism and extremism have often become synonyms with "speech I don't agree with". I have seen people called "nazis" all too easily on popular political forums like Reddit's /r/politics for daring to criticize the popular opinions. So maybe I am too paranoid here but I'd take what Google does with a grain of salt.

You say something they disagree with and you might just find your email, youtube, drive, google docs, and other accounts removed...

alecco2• 9 years ago

Today Google disabled a Jordan Peterson's account, including his YouTube channel with millions of views. This is a clinical psychologist professor who is openly anti-Marxist (but also openly anti-fascist, and anti-antisemitic). No explanation given. Just plainly said he wasn't following the ToS but not particularly what.

Only after hours of pressure from many people they reinstated it silently.

We need anti-trust laws to curve this authoritarian Internet rising.

zimpenfish11• 9 years ago

openly anti-Marxist (but also openly anti-fascist, and anti-antisemitic)

Openly anti-trans too.

DarkKomunalec4• 9 years ago

Anti-trans

A quick (and biased) search turns up:

"His employers have warned that, while they support his right to academic freedom and free speech, he could run afoul of the Ontario Human Rights code and his faculty responsibilities should he refuse to use alternative pronouns when requested."

Now I'm sure there's more to the issue, but that's kind of my point - increasingly, not ceding to every demand by group X is labelled as being 'anti-X', and ending any discussion.

beaconstudios5• 9 years ago

you should listen to his arguments before making such a swift assumption. He isn't anti-trans at all, and in fact has quite a few trans supporters - his argument is that compelled speech (legally mandating the use of non-binary pronouns) is a line that should not be crossed. In one of his videos he said that if someone asked him to use a pronoun decently he would do so, just that he strongly disagreed with the legislation.

alecco2• 9 years ago

Openly anti-trans too.

He is not against trans people at all. He is against being legally _forced_ to use dozens of new gender pronouns.

You keep using far left sources who don't back their claims. Jordan Peterson has hundreds of _hours_ of videos and lectures where he explais his positions. Link one of those to have an argument. Not some paraphrased nonsense to justify your position.

hsod• 9 years ago

Maybe we should nationalize YouTube to provide a safe space for anti-Marxists

e12e2• 9 years ago

I wonder how similar automatic censorship would have affected the Spanish civil war.

floatingatoll• 9 years ago

Could you expand on this point?

e12e2• 9 years ago

One man's Freedom Fighter is another man's terrorist.

[edit: Or for a different point: does this mean that US airfoce reqruitment videos for drone pilots would be censored by Google in Yemen?]

patrickg_zill• 9 years ago

If YouTube exercises editorial control over their content, are they then liable? They are no longer acting as a "common carrier".

throwawaymanbot2• 9 years ago

I feel this is going to annoy less people than the monetary change google made. So ISIS and Alt-right types/far right wing, are the only people who will care about this. And again, it's a Corporation's platform, not ours. Their rules.

ginreaper• 9 years ago

This really stinks. on the syrian civil war there is very little news out of warzones but that released by Amaq, HTS, or one of many 'terrorist' organizations. And according to the US who is a terrorist, and according to russia is a terrorist is all different. Its sometimes hard to track down old footage of the war because they're all removed form youtube

An update on our commitment to fight terror content online

Related Stories