People who document violent extremism are being shut down in Youtube’s crackdown

https://boingboing.net/2019/06/06/dolphins-in-tuna-nets.html

by pdkl95 • 7 years ago

45 96 7 years ago

torgian• 7 years ago

Looks to be time to use other video platforms then?

narag• 7 years ago

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.

Shivetya• 7 years ago

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...

threeseed3• 7 years ago

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.

jmkni2• 7 years ago

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.

brokenkebab3• 7 years ago

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

That would be true for some other private company, but I'm not sure this libertarian attitude is applicable to Google/Alphabet - it holds immense power over the 'net nowadays, I bet it can kill any emerging competitor.

piokoch• 7 years ago

Yes, that's sort of true, but imagine that some company openly claims that they are not going to hire women or black people or Muslims. You also shouldn't tell private company who they should hire, yet my guess that if any company started doing this it would stir some controversy and probably wouldn't stay unnoticed.

megous• 7 years ago

And you set up a website how, without involving private companies with content rules?

Web hosting comapnies have rules too. Even VPS and public cloud companies have content rules for what you can do with VPS.

So you have to do some kind of server hosting, and make sure your ISP will not take you down for content.

So this turns out to be a bit more involved than "set up your own website".

Also, your statement is not completely true. Phone companies are not allowed to police content of your communications, for example, even if they are private.

nathanaldensr• 7 years ago

Yes they are: Microsoft, Cloudflare, etc.

bitL• 7 years ago

"Make your own Internet"

tootahe452• 7 years ago

It has been tried, and it turns out they come after your hosting providers too and get you kicked off that way, they also get you blocked from integrating with any payment platforms (as Patreon competitors have found out). Do you want to use Sendgrid to validate users by email? Twilio to notify people when their subscriptions upload new videos? nope, the thought police are getting you booted off of those too. It's not about making you use another platform, it's about making you shut up completely. If someone actually did everything themselves and made a usable website, I've no doubt they'd be getting ISPs to block it.

dagw• 7 years ago

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole thing, but I thought that Google wasn't actually blocking or taking down these videos, only refusing to sell advertising on the video on the behalf of the video's creators.

threeseed3• 7 years ago

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.

raxxorrax7• 7 years ago

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.

dageshi2• 7 years ago

Does everyone have a right to advertisements before their content?

DarkWiiPlayer8• 7 years ago

I think not, Tim.

You, sir, are a man of culture

stackola2• 7 years ago

Advertisers do not want to be associated with violent content

Which is why there is no money in Boxing, UFC, action movies and so on. It's got nothing to do with violence.

mtgx• 7 years ago

Advertisers do not want to be associated with violent content

True. They do not want that.

And for good reason.

I disagree. That's not a good enough reason to censor such information from the public.

SuoDuanDao• 7 years ago

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

throwaway77384• 7 years ago

Vimeo and PeerTube are your best bets.

Fjolsvith4• 7 years ago

https://d.tube/

mikorym2• 7 years ago

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

0815test4• 7 years ago

Yup. It doesn't have to make sense as a policy, y'know; it's all about appearances, public image and not wanting to be associated with "sensitive" stuff of any sort. Documentaries about Nazism, with historical imagery? Exposes of violent extremism? No way, that stuff is way too icky!

krapp6• 7 years ago

It's basically the same reason no one but J-List wants to advertise on 4chan.

imglorp• 7 years ago

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.

DarkWiiPlayer8• 7 years ago

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.

mikorym2• 7 years ago

This reminds me of how satire has a short life cycle. For later generations it becomes difficult to see the difference between the parody and thing "being parodied".

maxdamantus• 7 years ago

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?

raxxorrax7• 7 years ago

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.

krapp6• 7 years ago

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.

stunt• 7 years ago

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

DarkWiiPlayer8• 7 years ago

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.

stackola2• 7 years ago

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

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

cabalamat• 7 years ago

PeerTube https://joinpeertube.org/en/

Fjolsvith4• 7 years ago

https://d.tube/ ?

neilv3• 7 years ago

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.

mschuster91• 7 years ago

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

Well, advocating for genocide on Muslims, spreading deadly propaganda such as antivaxx or "great replacement" or such certainly qualifies as "extremism".

Angostura• 7 years ago

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

neilv3• 7 years ago

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.

tootahe452• 7 years ago

To put it in perspective:

5 months ago Alex Jones was extreme. In this last round, Eli the computer guy was considered too extreme.

brokenkebab3• 7 years ago

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?

pdkl952• 7 years ago

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

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

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

brokenkebab3• 7 years ago

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".

leereeves• 7 years ago

It seems like the defenders of censorship always imagine the censors will block only the things they don't like, but it rarely works out that way. Anyone who advocates censorship needs to realize that some things they don't want censored will be, through imperfection, abuse of power, or simple difference of opinion.

mkettn• 7 years ago

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

DarkWiiPlayer8• 7 years ago

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.

qrbLPHiKpiux• 7 years ago

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.

DarkWiiPlayer8• 7 years ago

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• 7 years ago

Never heared of boingboing.net

That's a genuine surprise! You can read about it here: 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

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

DarkWiiPlayer8• 7 years ago

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.

hackerbabz4• 7 years ago

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.

DarkWiiPlayer8• 7 years ago

You got that wrong mate.

Third step: Broaden the definition of nazi and repeat.

dalbasal• 7 years ago

I disagree.

If you had your own website where choices of this kind need to be made.. sure, you can go ahead and make determinations based on principle. Your own definitions and evaluations of Nazism, evil, eviler and such will shine through, especially the priority list. Your own values will shine through the "what worked?" Step. Overall though, it would be totally fine. You are a person (presumably a decent one) and your principled choices are a great way to govern your website.

YouTube is a major part of global media, a major subsidiary of Google/alphabet and a major channel through which democratic politics, speech and social life is conducted around the world. YouTube makes more mayors, parliamentarians an public intellectuals than they likely even bother to know about.

It's an institution, in every sense. Ways of doing things that are perfectly workable for a person do not translate to institutional scale.

Grue32• 7 years ago

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

hackerbabz4• 7 years ago

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

bronzeage2• 7 years ago

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.

raxxorrax7• 7 years ago

The allegedly worst site of actual national socialists had some badly drawn anime comics with very questionable messages and a minuscule user base. They were at the lowest bottom of the barrel for years. Then censorship ambitions flared up and look where we are now...

Not that rational arguments seem to work in this discussion...

eesmith4• 7 years ago

"Nazis" in these sorts of discussions is broadly meant to include 'actual national socialists', neo-nazis, white nationalists and white supremacists, and their sympathizers, stooges, and fellow travelers. This makes it a form of metonymy.

Since the broader term includes more materials than "badly drawn anime comics", it appears you do not understand what most people usually mean by "Nazis". (To confirm my suspicion, I see at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19729764 that you used the phrase "national socialists knew very well", suggesting that you consider it as a term for people in the past, and not those in the present. How then did any of them have web sites, and were interested in anime?)

By the way, many people who, seemingly hyper-pedantically narrow the use of "Nazi" for "actual national socialists" or (seen elsewhere) "members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party" are often deliberately derailing the topic. My advice is to not follow practices which might mistakenly get you labeled as a Nazi sympathizer.

In any case, the HN guideline is to assume the "strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize". "Actual national socialists" is a much weaker and not really justifiable interpretation.

DanBC• 7 years ago

Everything we have shows that this is untrue.

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

bronzeage2• 7 years ago

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.

eesmith4• 7 years ago

A textbook publisher is not obligated to publish every textbook where there is the slightest demand for it.

A newspaper is not obligated to publish every letter-to-the-editor which comes its way.

A scientific journal is not obligated to publish every article submitted. Articles are even retracted.

Their failure to publish is neither "cutting someone's tongue" nor "censorship". Or, if it is censorship, it's been around since forever, making the term meaningless.

Why should Google have an obligation to publish that no other media company has?

(I also agree with DanBC that what you wrote is not true. Among other things, why are there so many anti-vaxxers when the anti-anti-vaxxers have used the techniques you mentioned, and more, and when there is no credible doubt about the lack of connection between vaccinations and autism?)

bartimus2• 7 years ago

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

Fjolsvith4• 7 years ago

Who gets to rank the videos?

bartimus2• 7 years ago

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.

YayamiOmate• 7 years ago

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.

tempodox• 7 years ago

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.

People who document violent extremism are being shut down in Youtube’s crackdown

Related Stories