Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Proposal For Dealing With Terrorist Videos On the Internet (vortex.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the out-with-the-bad dept.

Lauren Weinstein writes: Recent claims by some (mostly nontechnical) observers that it would be "simple" for services like YouTube to automatically block "terrorist" videos, in the manner that various major services currently detect child porn images are nonsensical. One major difference is that those still images are detected via data "fingerprinting" techniques that are relatively effective on known still images compared against a known database, but are relatively useless outside the realm of still images, especially for videos of varied origins that are routinely manipulated by uploaders specifically to avoid detection. Two completely different worlds. So are there practical ways to at least help to limit the worst of the violent videos, the ones that most directly portray, promote, and incite terrorism or other violent acts? I believe there are.

2 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. This is getting tiresome by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Firstly, such videos should not be removed, "Know thy enemy" you know. I guess the best way to deal with them is to put them behind the usual 18+ rating as youtube has already been doing for years to even slightly provocative clips.

    Secondly, most people, this journalist included, don't understand terrorism. Its goal is not to kill, but to be heard and to suggest fear. Your risk of dying of terrorism is many magnitudes lower than dying from other natural courses, including a vehicle crash or cancer.

    The best way to deal with terrorism is to neglect them totally. Don't let them on TV or radio, or Internet. Fight them behind the curtains.

    1. Re:This is getting tiresome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Only the army and the spooks needs to know them that well. So remove them.

      My father grew up in a totalitarian state and worked in a library, so he was allowed to see much of the censored subversive material. He has taught me a lot about the threats that actually face a population, rather than the ones manufactured by cunning propagandists.

      The tl;dr of it is that he thinks the idea that the government should have a privileged position in being able to access speech is tyrannical, unworkable bullshit, and that it's mostly used to oppress dissent rather than to protect proportionately from immediate threats.