YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki addresses hate speech controversy

https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/10/youtube-ceo-susan-wojcicki-addresses-hate-speech-controversy/

by lawrenceyan • 7 years ago

27 53 7 years ago

techcrunch.com

vecplane• 7 years ago

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

dang• 7 years ago

Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

plx74372• 7 years ago

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

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

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

busterarm• 7 years ago

The problem is that content and the free and easy means of posting it are the whole lifeblood of these social platforms.

They have no business model without it.

I still agree with you though. Maybe for the good of everyone these things need to go.

null0pointer4• 7 years ago

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

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

plx74372• 7 years ago

If they can’t exercise effective editorial control, they shouldn’t be in that business. Same as a newspaper that publishes harmful or libellous content. Will it kill off Facebook and Twitter in their current forms? Probably...but that’s a feature, not a bug.

holler• 7 years ago

this. I have a new social media startup project based on user-submitted content and I can tell you that there will be no way to compete if regulation is enacted that treats social media companies as publishers. It's hard enough just to build something that people may want to use in a market dominated by titans, but by adding the additional burden of moderation and liability for content, we'd be ensuring that the incumbents never have to worry about competition again.

Barrin922• 7 years ago

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

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

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

Ronnie_Dipple• 7 years ago

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

As we all know Google is on shaky ground atm.

dvt5• 7 years ago

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

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

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

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

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

untog3• 7 years ago

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

I'm sorry, what?

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

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xwn54q/google-says-right...

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

dvt5• 7 years ago

It's been a while since I watched John Oliver or Colbert, I guess I missed them using slurs on air?

Colbert literally called Donald Trump Putin's "c--k holster" on live TV (but was obviously bleeped). Samantha Bee called Ivanka Trump a "feckless c--t." Both of these are easily Google-able.

Again, I'm not a fan of this kind of language on either side, but let's at least be fair.

mikeEnoch• 7 years ago

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

fucking_tragedy• 7 years ago

Second, it's clear that YouTube, much like Google, et al. are still attempting to keep their classification as a murky "grey area" where they aren't really platforms, but they aren't really publishers, so they can make tons of money, but not seriously answer to the public either

This distinction you and others are trying to draw between "publishers" and "platforms" is a red herring.

The Communications Decency Act is very explicit about why this is a red herring:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

It does not matter how much curation, promotion, or removal of content Google, Facebook et al. engage in. They will never be held liable for the content their users upload, beyond existing criminal and civil liabilities such as those imposed by the DMCA. By virtue of being a provider of an interactive computer service, they will never be treated as publishers.

latch3• 7 years ago

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

SpicyLemonZest• 7 years ago

I know Canada's hate speech laws are pretty broad, but I'm not sure they make it a crime to call people nasty names.

latch3• 7 years ago

I don't know either. You might be right. (Does Crowder cross that line between harassing an individual and targeting groups?) Doesn't change that Canada should be applying its laws to these platforms.

lostgame• 7 years ago

It really depends. If someone just walked up to the street here in Toronto where I live, and, for instance, with no provocation, called me a faggot for holding hands with my girlfriend, that, in my opinion, is hate speech, and that individual certainly could face consequences.

If you, say, make a joke about someone being an 'edgefag', 4-chan style, I think that's fine, in context, and somethimg I did myself, years ago.

In Law, there's the 'Word' of the law and the 'Spirit', or Intention, of the Law, and ultimately, in a court of law, it's the intention, specifically with hate speech, that really determines if it's criminal in nature or not.

Full disclosure: I'm lesbian, polyamourous, and I am extremely happy that my partners and I can feel safe walking around downtown holding hands without people acting this way.

chroma5• 7 years ago

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

His argument has three parts.

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

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

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

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

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY

jhanschoo2• 7 years ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

latch3• 7 years ago

I'll take a look at the video but..

I see problems with #1. First, I don't believe that having hate speech in the open is better because it can then be refuted. I think that's just BS..bigots aren't fueled by rational discussion, they're fueled by hate and ignorance.

Second, part of the problem here is that these platforms are a) open and b) can push this content, including to minors. I'd probably be willing to have Youtube and twitter thave _no_ censorship but in exchange the platforms should be be dumb directories and/or not publicly accessible.

Third, hate speech can lead to violence. I feel that this point needs to be balanced against someone's right to listen (is that really a right?).

I agree that in this case, it's probably more harassment than full on hate speech. But once you start spewing hate at large groups of people, more harm is done than good:

"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."

threatofrain• 7 years ago

But the censorship which you see now is not the censorship simply of a whimsical censor king. It is the censorship of actors responding to perceived public pressure. This is a decentralised force of censorship bubbling up to central authorities of the land, who feel they must respond because the public still has enough power.

Now in China one might argue differently, that a censor king could routinely ignore the views of the public. But what's happening in the west are democracies opting into censorship. A lot of people like censorship, they just don't like the word.

apta2• 7 years ago

and the quran contain passages encouraging hatred of homosexuals

I challenge you to provide the passage you claim.

cwperkins• 7 years ago

I'm ok with sites working on de-radicalization by making certain content more difficult to find, but I think we need transparency in all of this. I'm weary of a giant corporation like Google deciding what is "correct" discourse.

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

kjeetgill• 7 years ago

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

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

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

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

joshdover• 7 years ago

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

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

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

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

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

rangerpolitic2• 7 years ago

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

ahelwer• 7 years ago

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

matz1• 7 years ago

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

alexryan• 7 years ago

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

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

RomanBob• 7 years ago

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

jstewartmobile• 7 years ago

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

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

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

darkpuma• 7 years ago

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

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki addresses hate speech controversy

Related Stories