Google Announces New Measures To Fight Extremist YouTube Videos (cnet.com)

An anonymous reader quotes CNET: YouTube will take new steps to combat extremist- and terrorist-related videos, parent company Google said Sunday. "While we and others have worked for years to identify and remove content that violates our policies, the uncomfortable truth is that we, as an industry, must acknowledge that more needs to be done. Now," Kent Walker, Google's general counsel, said in an op-ed column in the London-based Financial Times.
Here's CNET's summary of the four new measure Google is implementing:

• Use "more engineering resources to apply our most advanced machine learning research to train new 'content classifiers' to help us more quickly identify and remove such content."
• Expand YouTube's Trusted Flagger program by adding 50 independent, "expert" non-governmental organizations to the 63 groups already part of it. Google will offer grants to fund the groups.
• Take a "tougher stance on videos that do not clearly violate our policies -- for example, videos that contain inflammatory religious or supremacist content." Such videos will "appear behind a warning" and will not be "monetized, recommended or eligible for comments or user endorsements."
• Expand YouTube's efforts in counter-radicalization. "We are working with Jigsaw to implement the 'redirect method' more broadly. ... This promising approach harnesses the power of targeted online advertising to reach potential Isis recruits, and redirects them towards anti-terrorist videos that can change their minds about joining."

Comments

What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Zombie Ryushu]

What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. They are Secular Humanist Political commentators and Journalists who report on current events and extremists in the news. They are Agnostic Atheists who are critical of religion, and want to hold Government accountable.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[epyT-R]

They will be labeled as racist/sexist/homophobic whatever-nazis. When logical argumentation becomes 'hate speech', it's game over for the enlightenment.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[PopeRatzo]

Agnostic Atheists

I like that - "Agnostic Atheist". It's someone who doesn't believe in God but doesn't want to be lumped in with douchenozzles like Richard Dawkins. Basically, it's "I don't know if there's a god, but prolly not, but just in case, you never know."

What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman,

What about them? I don't see how these Google measures are going to affect them.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[john081351]

will this list include the right wing white racicalized christian groups?

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[elrous0]

Well, by liberal Silicon Valley rules, it will work like this:

If they criticize Christianity, then it's free speech

If they criticize Islam, then it's racism and hate speech.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on who you ask the given definition may apply to them. Not for the banning, but the disabled comments and upvotes.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[BarbaraHudson]

Nonsense - you're either an agnostic or an atheist. Agnostics say that they don't know for sure one way or another whether god exists - atheists say god doesn't exist. Which is why Richard Dawkins isn't really an atheist - he's "almost certain." - which makes him a nervous agnostic fence-sitter publicity hound who's trying to have it both ways so that if god does exist, hopefully god won't be as pissed off with him as with the real atheists.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[BarbaraHudson]

There's a difference between logical argumentation and beyond all reasonable doubt.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[epyT-R]

So, therefore?

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Ol Olsoc]

They will be labeled as racist/sexist/homophobic whatever-nazis. When logical argumentation becomes 'hate speech', it's game over for the enlightenment.

Or MGTOW or feminist videos? Gun control versus second amendment affecionados. Or Bill Maher, and whoever hates him? A lot of these folk have an intense hatred towards each other. Be it liberal, or conservative.

We live in a world where some folks want a whole lot of speech muzzled, and the pro muzzlers are more than happy to call their antagonists hate speech.

They better have their policies very tightly defined, because it becomes a muzzling of controversy otherwise.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, by liberal Silicon Valley rules, it will work like this:

If they criticize White Christians, then it's free speech

If they criticize Islam, Jews or non-white criminals (black, Hispanic, etc) then it's racism and hate speech.

Fixed that for you.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

We live in a world where we have gay marriage, but the reason is "the writers of the constitution protected it". Where Heller was a 5-4 decision, with 4 of the judges willing to assume that the 2nd amendment has no legal meaning whatsoever. A world where the plain language that allows the president to block entry to groups of people is ignored because of the assumption that the president is a racist- despite the fact that being a racist isn't illegal.

Regardless of your political position, you have to recognize that this attempt to change the laws via the courts instead of legislation is frightening. And if you look around, you'll see that logic being applied all throughout the left- they've divided groups into "people of color" and "non-people of color" (whites), and also claim that *there's no such thing as being white*. Denying the existence of a group is not a good first step towards relations! The same groups allow "no whites allowed" ceremonies and days, all without using the word "white" (which again, they don't believe exists).

Given that this is upsetting to almost all Americans, who were raised believing that race doesn't matter (or at least shouldn't ever matter legally, in employment, etc.) and everyone is equal (at the VERY least under the law), it is very convenient for this same faction to shut down debate by calling everyone who disagrees with them racist- going as far as trying to redefine racism so it can't be applied to white people (who don't exist, except when we make regulations against them).

So yes, this will be used to shut down totally conservative videos. It will be used to shut down content from people who are on a blacklist. It will be used to censor heavily, and it will be used much more preferentially against conservatives in the west than Islamist propaganda videos and other recruitment materials, as eager SJW types line up to fight the group that they have been whipped into a frenzy against.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[BarbaraHudson]

Some people are going way past reasonable arguments in defending their stupidity. Just because you can make an argument for something doesn't mean it's a reasonable argument. cf. flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, Trump's explanations as to why his inauguration had more people than Obama's, Hillary trying to blame everyone except herself even though everyone knew the rules from the beginning - elections are won in the electoral college, not by the popular vote.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[epyT-R]

An atheist is someone who does not have a belief in deities. It offers no justification. An agnostic atheist does not believe due to lack of evidence. This has nothing to do with Dawkins except that he probably is one.

Dawkins rightfully criticizes islam for its intolerant doctrines, esp towards women, gays, and non-believers. This should not surprise you as he has always been quite vocal and critical towards irrational belief systems. The funny thing is, if this was prior to ~2004, you'd probably be on board with him. At some point, the left will have to deal with this schizophrenic conflict between what used to be called 'liberal values' and islam. I just hope it's not at the expense of the former.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[AmiMoJo]

They are specifically taking about tackling videos that demonise Christians, in order to radicalize people against them. Islamists like to portray their struggle as a holy war.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[BarbaraHudson]

Being a racist isn't illegal. Acting on those beliefs to deny people their rights is.

If some people aren't happy with being kicked out, they're certainly free to start their own site. Te first amendment only applies to government censorship. It doesn't mean others can't arbitrarily censor you. Free speech also means that platforms are free to reject whatever they want, whether it's terrorist videos or bronies.

Also, there are plenty of white groups that are recognized as being discriminated against. Including the biggest white group of all - white women.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[epyT-R]

That's correct. However, in order for broken ideas to die, they must be challenged. In order for that to happen, they must be expressed. People aren't static creatures. They must learn, and, many times, re-learn throughout their lives. Each generation also must have this opportunity or they'll lead us right back into the dark ages again. Youtube's new policy helps set a narrative that favors certain sets of ideas (doctrines) by allowing them continued ad funding and commentary, while effectively silencing others. While google can do what they like with the site, this policy is not good for the user base nor society as a whole.

'Extremism' is a relative term and has nothing to do with correctness. It's just a generic of blasphemy law and 'hate speech' law.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Calydor]

So, if I think there may be some truth to the theory that our universe is a simulation, and take it a step further to say we're some super-advanced civilization's version of The Sims - are the players not effectively equal to gods?

'Atheist' is the closest descriptor you have to 'I believe in science', being convinced the truth lies with the big bang, evolution etc. - yet the agnostic can't rule out some kind of higher power that may nudge things in specific directions without getting as involved as gods tend to do in established religions. They don't necessarily invalidate each other.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[BarbaraHudson]

All you do when you challenge obviously broken ideas is give them credence, because people tend to think "well, if they're fighting the idea so hard instead of just ignoring it, there must be something there."

Remember the baker that refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple? The couple should have just walked away and said "your loss." Instead, they made a huge stink, and crowdsourcing campaigns raised over $800,000 for the bakery owners - more than enough for them to retire.

As for what's good for society as a whole, that's for society to decide. That's why we have laws criminalizing hate speech, juvenile porn, etc. The first amendment only applies to attempts by government to impose censorship, and even there society and the courts have held that some restrictions are both reasonable and necessary.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's correct. However, in order for broken ideas to die, they must be challenged.

True. Then when they're dead, we bury them, as they deserve.

In order for that to happen, they must be expressed.

Nope. Expressing broken ideas does not help them die, nor is it related to challenging them. That is merely resurrecting them, instead of putting them in the grave they deserve.

People aren't static creatures. They must learn, and, many times, re-learn throughout their lives.

Exactly why expressing broken ideas does not help them die. They just expose more and more people to the infection.

Each generation also must have this opportunity or they'll lead us right back into the dark ages again.

Exposing each generation to the bad ideas of the past will lead us right back into the dark ages, as they inevitably fail to learn the lessons. Sadly, there just doesn't seem to be any kind of memetic immunity that is passed down through inheritance.

Not reliably anyway.

Youtube's new policy helps set a narrative that favors certain sets of ideas (doctrines) by allowing them continued ad funding and commentary, while effectively silencing others.

Good. That is the point of choice, being able to support some, and oppose others.

While google can do what they like with the site, this policy is not good for the user base nor society as a whole.

Mysteriously, you have failed to articulate a persuasive argument for your contention. Maybe you thought you said something, but failed to notice your oversight in leaving it out?

'Extremism' is a relative term and has nothing to do with correctness. It's just a generic of blasphemy law and 'hate speech' law.

That extremism is merely a "relative term" and a "generic of blasphemy law and 'hate speech' law" is merely the latest mechanism that extremists have tried to use to defend themselves from the immunization methods being brought against them. Such extremists are not dopes, they are not fools, they are sophisticated and manipulative, and you're, at best, carrying water for them.

The sad thing is, you'd know this, if you followed your own dictates, and had some familiarity with the past ideas.

That speaks poorly for you.

And no, this does not support your contention above, not at all. You seem to have some idea that you're more effective in your argument than you really are, but you're leaving a lot out, and making other mistakes.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[BarbaraHudson]

Except your theory that we're just a simulation has zero science behind it, just "sciency opinions" from credulous scientists who want it to be true. It's actually a religious belief, because we have to accept it on faith, because if it were true we would have no way to prove it. Atheists don't take such things on faith.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[AmiMoJo]

Considering that being an ISIS recruitment platform is not a viable business model, I'm not sure what the alternative is. They seem to be trying really hard to avoid getting involved in politics.

The bigger problem they have with censorship is bogus copyright infringement claims and malicious reporting.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

All you do when you challenge obviously broken ideas is give them credence, because people tend to think "well, if they're fighting the idea so hard instead of just ignoring it, there must be something there."

And when you ignore broken ideas, people also may think "Well, they must be trying to get us to ignore this too, but it's the REAL truth!"

Humans are able to do lots of things that probably make Vulcans cry, except you know, Vulcans do the same.

Remember the baker that refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple? The couple should have just walked away and said "your loss." Instead, they made a huge stink, and crowdsourcing campaigns raised over $800,000 for the bakery owners - more than enough for them to retire.

Great! Win-win! I mean, sure, I'd prefer the money have gone to helping the homeless, the disabled, or refugees overseas, but if the homophobes of the world want to plow their money into paying a bunch of whiny bakers to not bake wedding cakes, that's still fine with me. Better than some things they could do with the money anyway.

But yeah, they get worked up over a damn cake, so what? They got worked up over the Confederate Flag cake, and the ISIS cake, they even thought the ISIS DILDO cake was real. Some people get into a frenzy. What can you do?

Seriously, that's a question that needs answering.

As for what's good for society as a whole, that's for society to decide. That's why we have laws criminalizing hate speech, juvenile porn, etc. The first amendment only applies to attempts by government to impose censorship, and even there society and the courts have held that some restrictions are both reasonable and necessary.

Don't you understand? We must TEACH the CONTROVERSY! We CANNOT CHALLENGE THEIR CHERISHED BELIEFS! That would be WRONG!

Just think, if Abe Lincoln had not respected Southern Tradition, we wouldn't have legal slavery! If George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams had not agreed that being ruled by an overseas government, we wouldn't have a Queen to celebrate as a token monarch today! Why we might have elected some crash, oafish, boor, instead! And if Galileo had been allowed to challenge Aristotle, some damn fool might have crossed the Ocean Blue and had his crew starve to death since he refused to turn back!

Imagine the horrors!

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[BlueStrat]

That's correct. However, in order for broken ideas to die, they must be challenged.

True. Then when they're dead, we bury them, as they deserve.

Great! We can't have anyone learning from past history!

How will we keep convincing the 'useful idiots' to repeat the same ideological/political/societal mistakes that have always allowed tyranny to take hold down through history, if we leave records of past examples laying around to warn people!? [signed] Current & Future Tyrants, Dictators, and Oligarchs of the World

Strat

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Gravis Zero]

What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. They are Secular Humanist Political commentators and Journalists who report on current events and extremists in the news. They are Agnostic Atheists who are critical of religion, and want to hold Government accountable.

I fully support their right to post videos on their own website. Youtube is whatever youtube wants it to be and that does not include unrestricted speech.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's correct. However, in order for broken ideas to die, they must be challenged.

True. Then when they're dead, we bury them, as they deserve.

Great! We can't have anyone learning from past history!

Do you contend that a person can only learn something if it's alive and effecting the world directly? That we can't see something is dead, and keep it that way? Or must we consort with Necromancers to bring back an endless host of the Undead to torment us?

Who gains from that?

How will we keep convincing the 'useful idiots' to repeat the same ideological/political/societal mistakes that have always allowed tyranny to take hold down through history, if we leave records of past examples laying around to warn people!? [signed] Current & Future Tyrants, Dictators, and Oligarchs of the World

Here's what they actually write:

"Thank you for letting us continue to mislead all the "wonderful and enlightened people" to allow us to cozen them into letting our cagey manipulations to influence by refusing to call out our actual behavior and criticize us. We truly appreciate your "wisdom" as you give us the "accommodation" we truly deserve. --- Your most Loyal and Beneficent Leader who Graces you with His Rule.

Besides, you know what we have in cemeteries? RECORDS.

Just think, we could teach people by pointing out the graves where we've buried those ideas, or we could let people learn from the experience of living under a tyrannical despot themselves! Truly, that's the best experience. That's why I never tell children that fire burns, or even forbid them from playing with matches, it's best if they have a chance to set fire to a whole city instead.

Bluestrat, I know you like snark and all, but it's really a terrible way to make an argument, you should probably learn to bury it yourself, it tends to lead you astray. You get so worked up on making yourself appear witty, you don't realize when you're being an actual fool, rather than a jester.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[swillden]

Except your theory that we're just a simulation has zero science behind it

It's just logic. The argument goes like this: There appears to be no reason that a universe could not be simulated to an arbitrary level of detail. In an infinite universe, everything than can be done will be done, so a universe will eventually be simulated. Moreover, we have already created numerous incredibly crude simulators, and we're clearly going to make better ones, so eventually we will simulate a universe.

Next, observe that precisely the same logic applies inside a simulated universe. So any simulated universe, if run for long enough, will likely simulate one or more universes. Repeat ad infinitum.

Therefore, it is probable that there exist a large number of simulated universes, and one real one. What is the probability that we live in the real one, and not one of the simulations? Absent any way to distinguish, the probability is high that we live in one of the simulations.

It's actually a religious belief, because we have to accept it on faith

The same argument applies to the belief that we live in a real, non-simulated universe.

But, actually, I don't think anyone rational seriously argues that we do live in a simulation. Given the argument's postulates, it's a logical conclusion, but we haven't actually proven the core postulate -- that a universe could be simulated -- is true. On the other hand, we know of absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be possible.

So... it seems possible, perhaps even likely. But it seems equally unlikely that we can ever know for certain.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[PopeRatzo]

Depending on who you ask the given definition may apply to them. Not for the banning, but the disabled comments and upvotes.

Oh, the humanity! Not the upvotes!

Re: What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[fubarrr]

Religion must die

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[BarbaraHudson]

When an idea is obviously broken, you will never convince a nut case that it's not true. They are, by definition, acting rationally. In other words, they are delusional. You will never, ever convince them. They must come to that realization themselves. Ignoring their ideas is better than arguing with them for the very reason you gave - they will think that we're working so hard to disprove it that there must be something there. You're just feeding into the delusion.

And no, it's not a win-win. What it proves is that you attack a minority, there are people who will make you rich. That's not a win-win - it's financially motivating bigots.

"Teach the controversy?" So we'll teach about flat earth theories? They're not worth the resources.

Abraham Lincoln had several opportunities to repeal slavery. The motivation was strategic - by emancipating the slaves, this would cripple cotton production as slaves fled to the north. Other countries had already abolished the slave trade - the US was slow on the uptake. Not something to be proud of.

Also, having the Queen of America as titular head of state HAS to be better than Trump. The Queen of Canada does her job well, even signing onto allowing Canada to be independent - hence the title Queen of Canada. It may be the same person, but that's just the way it works. Canada managed to get its' independence without a war.

Also, learn some science. People have known for ages - it was even proven in the 3rd century BC. It was because it was common knowledge that Isabella agreed to finance Columbus. Whether the earth was the center of the universe or not was irrelevant to Columbus' voyage.

It's pretty damn obvious for anyone who isn't blind. A distant ship becomes visible from the top down. That can only happen if the earth is a globe. Didn't they teach anything?

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[PopeRatzo]

. At some point, the left will have to deal with this schizophrenic conflict between what used to be called 'liberal values' and islam.

It's not as hard as you think, and it's not a schizophrenic conflict. It's garden variety human hatred. There's Islam, and then there's the hateful cult that justifies itself in its name. Just as there's Christianity, and then there's the hateful cult that justifies itself in its name. Hateful atheists will just find other ways to justify themselves.

As a one-time seminarian, I know well the difference between a faith and the misuse of sacred texts. As one famous theologian put it, "haters gonna hate".

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana

Sorry A/C, but I think I'll take George's warning over your admonitions.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[BarbaraHudson]

There's a huge difference between teaching facts from past history and perpetrating bs. Imagine how much better we'd be off if the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran had been consigned to the rust bucket of history. People would be discussing facts, not dogma.

If studying these texts was relegated to an understanding of the period THAT would inoculate people from stupid ideas by showing the harm they did, and how much better off society became when they were abandoned.

Instead we have the Taliban, the Christian Taliban, and every other curse of religion. People teaching that a woman must be subservient to men, that if her husband rapes her it's not really rape, that divorce is a pathway to hell, that abortion is murder and you have to try to give birth even if it's pretty much guaranteed both you and the fetus will die, that dancing is for loose women, who you're allowed to love, who you're allowed to marry, which women have to use the men's washroom (while forgetting that certain men would have to use the woman's washroom), that slavery is supported in the new testament, that women can't be priests or pastors, that apostates deserve death, that a believer may not marry an unbeliever, etc.

Religion is an enabler of tyrants through the millennia. It needs to die. People should act well towards one another because they care about each other, not because they want to earn brownie points with god.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[BarbaraHudson]

Logic has been used to prove lots of things, like bees not being able to fly. That heavier things fall faster. That the earth is the center of the universe.

Proof is what counts. A theory that is not possible to be tested is worse than useless - it's a diversion, a waste of time.

BTW - it's not possible. There is absolutely no evidence, and it is the person who makes the extraordinary claim who has the burden of proof. What you have is an unsupported belief - same as any other religious belief.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[chihowa]

'Atheist' is the closest descriptor you have to 'I believe in science', being convinced the truth lies with the big bang, evolution etc. - yet the agnostic can't rule out some kind of higher power that may nudge things in specific directions without getting as involved as gods tend to do in established religions. They don't necessarily invalidate each other.

Unless there is repeatable, quantifiable evidence that god does not exist. atheism is just as unscientific as theism. Since metaphysics, by definition, is distinct from the observable universe, atheism requires you to base your beliefs on faith just as much as theism does. Suspension of belief until evidence is found is the most rational approach, but expecting evidence of the metaphysical to actually be found isn't very rational. Replacing that old time religion with a goofy science-as-religion where you "believe in the big bang so there's no god" isn't scientific either

Really, god and science are orthogonal concepts and no belief about god (for most definitions of god) can be scientific.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

When an idea is obviously broken, you will never convince a nut case that it's not true. They are, by definition, acting rationally. In other words, they are delusional. You will never, ever convince them. They must come to that realization themselves. Ignoring their ideas is better than arguing with them for the very reason you gave - they will think that we're working so hard to disprove it that there must be something there. You're just feeding into the delusion.

Except ignoring them will not achieve a demonstrably better result either. As I pointed out, they can also rationalize your ignoring of them, they could even escalate based upon that. And of course, we have the problem of figuring out when somebody is a nutcase, and when they're just misinformed, which could be for reasons you don't know about.

There are people who have no eyes with which to see, people who can't see because they keep their eyes closed tight, and people stuck in the darkness, who just need somebody to shine a light. What to do, what to do.

You may just be letting the delusion grow and fester when you could spread a little infection control measures.

And no, it's not a win-win. What it proves is that you attack a minority, there are people who will make you rich. That's not a win-win - it's financially motivating bigots.

Let them, if they want to pour their money into the "suffering bakers of the world, forced to make same-sex wedding cakes" then what complaint do I really have?

They'd just be up to something else.

Of course, that there are real issues of marriage recognition that were the substance of say, Obergefeld v. Hodges, is another aspect. Sooner or later, you do have to reject something, whether it be Roy Moore, Kim Davis, Keith Bardwell, or Lu Ann Ballew.

"Teach the controversy?" So we'll teach about flat earth theories? They're not worth the resources.

But they demand it, they were voted into office, and due to Texas's influence over school text books, it isn't even easy to keep them out.

Abraham Lincoln had several opportunities to repeal slavery. The motivation was strategic - by emancipating the slaves, this would cripple cotton production as slaves fled to the north. Other countries had already abolished the slave trade - the US was slow on the uptake. Not something to be proud of.

You forgot the other part, the motivation by not going for emancipation, the reason for the peace talks, even at the end of the war, and all the attempts he made at conciliatory actions by not going immediate on the process. What did that accomplish, was it the right thing or the wrong thing?

Also, having the Queen of America as titular head of state HAS to be better than Trump.

How could that be? Didn't you see how pale she looked? And that outfit? Riding around in a horsed carriage? I'd much rather have an orange turd playing Golf from an electric auto-motorcar!

The Queen of Canada does her job well, even signing onto allowing Canada to be independent - hence the title Queen of Canada. It may be the same person, but that's just the way it works. Canada managed to get its' independence without a war.

And look what they got out of it! They don't even have an NFL franchise! They play some wacky version of "Handegg" instead.

Also, learn some science. People have known for ages - it was even proven in the 3rd century BC. It was because it was common knowledge that Isabella agreed to finance Columbus. Whether the earth was the center of the universe or not was irrelevant to Columbus' voyage.

It's pretty damn obvious for anyone who isn't blind. A distant ship becomes visible from the top down. That can only happen if the earth is a globe. Didn't they teach anything?

They taught me to go "WHOOOSH" when somebody doesn't make an effort to recognize levity. I dunno, maybe you caught the point, but I'm not sure. Perhaps if you'd worked on your response a bit. The sad thing is, some people MIGHT be entirely serious and miss what I was saying.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[chihowa]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but stating that there absolutely is no god without any quantifiable evidence to back that statement up is "taking such things on faith". God isn't testable and so has nothing to do with science. Totally orthogonal concepts.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[lgw]

Google wants a muzzling of controversy! Not from political agenda, but simple short-sighted greed: advertisers don't like their ads to appear next to anything controversial.

But, of course, it's the controversy that gets the page views. With no controversy (and no porn), only cat videos will remain, and that's a small portion of YouTube's traffic. It's an idea so stupid only an MBA could have thought of it.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana

Sorry A/C, but I think I'll take George's warning over your admonitions.

Sorry A/C, but a pithy quote does not an argument make, or understanding demonstrate.

Try to follow the conversation a bit better. You might realize that the point of what I said, was that we bury things, Bluestrat, being your typical gadfly, ignored the meaning of what I said, and like you, tried to make an argument based on rhetoric, rather than attentively comprehend the meaning of my words, which was quite different than this tendentious objection about wiping away history, which has no real basis in what I said.

And do try to quote somebody accurately, George Santayana actually used a different phrase.

You can read the work here. You might actually learn something from reading the whole thing.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[lgw]

Upvotes determine visibility. New people with controversial opinions won't be "discoverable" on YouTube. The existing crowd can probably get by with Patreon etc, but what about the next generation. Well, they won't be on YouTube, that's for sure.

Also, the chilling effect can be seen in a lot of the non-political YT channels I watch. They're walking on eggshells, trying to guess what might get them banned. "Uh-oh, I talked about weapons, will that be a strike against me?"

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[lgw]

'Atheist' is the closest descriptor you have to 'I believe in science',

That's a very childish view. Science and religion are largely orthogonal. Science makes statements about how the world is, religion makes statements about how to be in the world.

Only if you're a simple-minded literalist do you think the creation stories and whatnot are there as history. Most people understand they're there as archetypical stories about how to live.

You can both believe in the Big Bang, and believe e.g. in the moral lesson of the story of Cain and Abel (if your brother is sacrificing for the future, and is more successful than you, then maybe the fault is yours, not his, and not an unfair universe.)

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[swillden]

Logic has been used to prove lots of things, like bees not being able to fly.

Only because the logic has been based on erroneous assumptions. The thing about this particular argument is that it contains very few assumptions. Which ones would you challenge?

Proof is what counts.

No theory can be proven. Only disproven.

A theory that is not possible to be tested is worse than useless - it's a diversion, a waste of time.

It's not entirely certain that this theory cannot be tested. It's not obvious that it can, but that doesn't mean it cannot. Also, humans engage in lots of diversions, and waste a lot of time. I'll bet you do, too. Why is this diversion bad, and yours good?

BTW - it's not possible

That's an extraordinary claim, as claims of impossibility almost always are.

There is absolutely no evidence, and it is the person who makes the extraordinary claim who has the burden of proof.

There's actually substantial evidence of the possibility of simulations. There's also clear evidence that intelligence can exist, and no evidence to support the notion that it cannot be simulated as well. What evidence exists in this argument is entirely on my side.

In any case, I have claimed only that it is possible, which isn't an extraordinary claim at all, in fact a rather mild one. You have claimed that it is impossible which is an extraordinary claim, placing the burden of proof on you, by your own words.

What you have is an unsupported belief - same as any other religious belief.

I never said I believed it to be the case, only that it is possible, and logical.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[labnet]

Well, by liberal Silicon Valley rules, it will work like this:

If they criticize Christianity, then it's free speech

If they criticize Islam, then it's racism and hate speech.

Why does the far left interpret disagreement as hate?
I don't think gay marriage is a good thing for society: but I don't hate gay people who hold that opinion?

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[epyT-R]

Using censorious tactics also grants them credence. If the critics resort to (ab)use of authority to prevent such expression, it just appears they can't construct a valid criticism. Better to let all the camps have it out so that those on the sidelines can draw their own conclusions.

That example is not really a clash of ideas like what one finds on youtube. It involves actions taken by both sides. Words != actions.

Depends what you mean by society. As individuals, or via the state by proxy? I agree with the former because the result would be that individuals can express their views. By doing so, 'society' has expressed itself. The latter is just ripe for tyrannical abuse as dominant groups apply pressure to get themselves included on the 'do not challenge' list.

Yet, as you say, 'hate speech' bans are laws and laws are written and imposed by the state. Shouldn't they therefore be unconstitutional? While you're right that there's plenty of language twisting precedent to justify them, none of it really gets around this fundamental conflict. The reason the first amendment exists is to make it difficult for thin skinned opportunists to shut people up for expressing ideas they don't agree with or which run counter to their interests/agendas. Better to let the idiots speak than let easily manipulated committees decide what speech is acceptable.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've clearly not read threads regarding systemd or Slashdot Beta. Nice idea though.

Re: What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you hate freedom?

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[epyT-R]

Sounds like a no true scotsman fallacy. Who decides what is 'abuse' of 'sacred' texts when the whole premise is based on faith and subjective interpretation? This applies to any religion, not just islam. From the perspective of islamic fundamentalists, the watered down 'moderate' interpretation you defend is blasphemy (or perhaps 'hate speech' towards allah and mohammed if you like). The fact this whole conflict is based on fantastical, improvable beliefs is why religion receives criticism in the first place.

Dawkins criticizes the whole religious 'stack', not just islam. He just ran into trouble with progressives because they had placed muslims on the protected caste list and he refused to give the religion a free pass.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why isn't twitter hosting content from ISIS"

the next day...

"Why are content hosts checking for extremist videos! sensorchip! It should just be targeted at muslims like my Presidents' travel ban"

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[epyT-R]

Nope. Expressing broken ideas does not help them die, nor is it related to challenging them. That is merely resurrecting them, instead of putting them in the grave they deserve.

Exposing each generation to the bad ideas of the past will lead us right back into the dark ages, as they inevitably fail to learn the lessons. Sadly, there just doesn't seem to be any kind of memetic immunity that is passed down through inheritance.

Not reliably anyway.

Ideas often come from within. They can never truly be buried forever.

If such ideas are truly broken then it should be simple for a society's elders to debunk them. Most who challenge them will eventually understand why they're wrong and will learn the lesson as they should. It is true that humans are poor at reliability and that not every student will learn the lesson, but this is still better than brutally repressing expression that is deemed untrue by some Ministry of Truth. That just invalidates the legitimacy of established 'doctrine' in the eyes of those whose voices were suppressed, whether it is correct or not on the subject. Also, inevitably, such a Ministry would corrupt itself into uselessness as those running it jockey for control.

Good. That is the point of choice, being able to support some, and oppose others.

Choice for whom, though? I didn't say google doesn't have the right, just that it shouldn't when it comes to their youtube policies.

Mysteriously, you have failed to articulate a persuasive argument for your contention. Maybe you thought you said something, but failed to notice your oversight in leaving it out?

or perhaps your reading comprehension skills failed you?

That extremism is merely a "relative term" and a "generic of blasphemy law and 'hate speech' law" is merely the latest mechanism that extremists have tried to use to defend themselves from the immunization methods being brought against them. Such extremists are not dopes, they are not fools, they are sophisticated and manipulative, and you're, at best, carrying water for them.

This doesn't address the issue of 'extremism', which bases the validity of a position on its distance from popular consensus. A society that can't or won't face uncomfortable ideas is weaker for it, especially if it is so afraid of said ideas that it won't teach subsequent generations the errors made out of fear of their rebirth. Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, eventually. While, I am sure such 'dopes' attempt to crybully their way into legitimacy, societies that regularly remind themselves why such 'dopes' are wrong stand better chances at resisting this than societies that won't out of fear or insecure virtue signaling on the part of their leaderships and institutions.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Ol Olsoc]

Considering that being an ISIS recruitment platform is not a viable business model, I'm not sure what the alternative is. They seem to be trying really hard to avoid getting involved in politics.

The bigger problem they have with censorship is bogus copyright infringement claims and malicious reporting.

It's a big place though, and I've seen a lot of political videos. Young Turks is getting pretty big, Pakman is middling. A lot of Bill Maher, Fox News, Breitbart, and others.

The copyright infringement part is a problem, with some people commenting on other people's videos, and often a Takedown notice gets pitted against fair use doctrine.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[PopeRatzo]

Sounds like a no true scotsman fallacy. Who decides what is 'abuse' of 'sacred' texts when the whole premise is based on faith and subjective interpretation?

Again, it's quite easy to interpret. To the extent that any sacred text preaches love, understanding and fellow-feeling, it's sacred. To the extent that it preaches hatred, bigotry or murder it's just full of shit.

Dawkins criticizes the whole religious 'stack', not just islam.

Dawkins is a dotty old fuckwit who is scared of dying and more scared of being inconsequential. I'll bet he asks to see a priest when his moment comes.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[PopeRatzo]

Upvotes determine visibility. New people with controversial opinions won't be "discoverable" on YouTube.

It's not YouTube's job to make controversial opinions "discoverable".

Also, the chilling effect can be seen in a lot of the non-political YT channels I watch. They're walking on eggshells, trying to guess what might get them banned.

For most of the world, that "walking on eggshells" you're talking about is known as "not being an asshole".

Youtube owes you fuck all.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

The courts are not "changing the law", they are interpreting it. That's their job.

From time to time, this interpretation shows up counter-intuitive effects of the law, or outright contradictions between different laws. That's expected, and it's the whole reason the USSC exists. That's not "politics", it's the system working exactly as the founders intended it to work.

If you don't want to be censored for posting inflammatory shit on YouTube, here's a thought: don't post inflammatory shit on YouTube. If you choose to do that anyway, don't come crying to me that you're being "censored". Snowflake.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[lgw]

It's not YouTube's job to make controversial opinions "discoverable".

Sure it is, it's both their moral duty and their duty to their stockholders (since "controversial" is another word for "clickbait").

For most of the world, that "walking on eggshells" you're talking about is known as "not being an asshole".

Way to entirely miss the point. Or maybe you think giving advice on how to make combat in a D&D session or interesting makes one an asshole? Maybe a review of replica Roman armor? I dunno with you, Ratzo. But anything that, taken out of context, might not be seen as family friendly has the channels I watch spooked right now.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, rant all you want, the only way you will eliminate religion is to eliminate humanity. Seeking an understanding of "why" for life, the universe, and everything through religion is an integral part of human nature. You may as well aim your rant at human emotions. They are more at the root of mankind's problems than a belief in a Creator, and have about an equal chance of being eliminated without eliminating humanity.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

The far left interprets disagreement as hate for precisely the same reason that the far right interprets disagreement as an attack on the first amendment. Because people on the extremes are unbelievably biased, by definition, and this makes it impossible for them to think rationally about certain issues. This is true whether you are talking about the alt-right and right-wing extremist groups (3%ers, oath keepeers), or their left-wing copycats (antifa) -- all morons. As a centrist, I know first hand that for every left-winger who calls you a racist for blaming all Muslims for the actions of their extremists, there is a right-winger who wish death upon you and your family if you suggest that perhaps it would be overkill to murder every last one of them.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

To be clear, I meant "if you suggest it would be overkill to murder every last Muslim". I have a standing promise from a 3%er that, when the "race wars" of their masturbatory fantasies begin, they'll come and kill me and my family first (despite my being white) for being a race traitor, because I said, and I quote "killing *all* Muslims is perhaps a bit overkill, no?"

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[PopeRatzo]

Sure it is, it's both their moral duty and their duty to their stockholders (since "controversial" is another word for "clickbait").

If "controversial" means "clickbait", then they shouldn't need YouTube. Use a different video hosting service.

Youtube is not a public utility. If you want to make an argument for the nationalization of Google (and resulting government regulation) or you want to talk about boycotting Youtube entirely, then we have something to discuss. You saying that Youtube has some "moral duty" to host videos with "controversial" themes, then we can talk about banks "moral duty" to have reasonable interest rates on credit cards or Sony's "moral duty" to lower their prices on Playstation 4s.

And stockholders are absolutely free to divest themselves of Google stock.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[nitehawk214]

Every single Atheist and Skeptic channel is going to get flagged and banned under this program.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[lgw]

Youtube is not a public utility

It's close, though. Because of the network effect, it gets almost all the eyeballs. I'd love for something non-Google to emerge as a serious conpetitor, but it's an imperfect world.

You saying that Youtube has some "moral duty" to host videos with "controversial" themes

Yup, still saying that. They're big enough that they need to be as neutral as possible, host content as broadly as possible. It's only through discussion of controversial ideas that needless political violence is averted. And that's a moral duty.

we can talk about banks "moral duty" to have reasonable interest rates on credit cards

The interest rates that banks are allowed to charge in the US is in fact capped by law - usury is illegal. Once can argue about the actual numeric limit of course. Or, at least one can argue as long as you don't argue on YouTube. Banks buy ads, after all, don't want to be controversial.

Sony's "moral duty" to lower their prices on Playstation 4s.

Aren't they selling them below cost as is? Anyway, plenty of people feel drug companies have a moral duty to limit profits on medicine - I don't, as I like funding research, but I see how reasonable people can disagree. Just don't disagree to loudly on YouTube, since pharma is a big source of ad revenue!

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[satsuke]

You got that completely wrong, it's not criticism of Christianity that is seen as hate speech by the left, it's extremist hate speech that is hate speech.

Your confusion is from the fact that right wingers seem to lump all muslims into a homogeneous group and ties them with extremists, when they are not one group, but hundreds of smaller groups, in the same way Christian sects are splintered among progressive and conservative sects, including groups that advocate violence.

Progressives just label the terrorist like elements of both as terrorist, both Christian and Muslim (and other religions / groups).

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[PopeRatzo]

It's only through discussion of controversial ideas that needless political violence is averted.

That's just not true. One of the places where "controversial ideas" were most freely and openly discussed was 1929 Weimar Germany. Spoiler alert: It didn't end well for them.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[DogDude]

They must learn, and, many times, re-learn throughout their lives. Each generation also must have this opportunity or they'll lead us right back into the dark ages again.

That's absurd. People can study and learn from history. We don't have to re-hash why Nazism is bad every generation.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your confusion is from the fact that right wingers seem to lump all muslims into a homogeneous group and ties them with extremists,

Like how you just lumped all right wingers into a homogenous group in order to assign them a particular prejudiced belief in order to demonize the lot of them?

Projection much?

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[bongey]

The left just takes the opposite opinion of anyone on the right. Liberals have no problem bashing conservatives over Christianity all day long, but suddenly for Islam they have become a defender of religious freedom. It has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with being irrationally the opposite of everything your political opponent thinks.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[bongey]

Liberals just want to be the opposite of conservatives. Liberals just cannot bring themselves to ever agree with a conservative.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[lgw]

Bullshit. Humans only have 2 methods of conflict resolution: discussion, and violence. Pick one.

If you're afraid your ideas will lose in the marketplace of ideas, come up with better arguments! If you think you're the only one smart enough to see the truth, while those peasants are just so dumb they can't see why their ideas are wrong, stop being an arrogant prick!

To quote the sage Jimmy Buffet: "Don't ever forget that you just may wind up being wrong."

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Mashiki]

Of course it will. But it won't include left wing white radicalized communist groups. So don't worry, you can keep enjoying the antifa, bamn, alf, elf, sea shepard, and all those other violent extremist groups telling people to assault those who don't follow their political ideology.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Aristos Mazer]

> despite the fact that being a racist isn't illegal.

Correct. But establishment of religion is illegal, PARTICULARLY for the president, and if he is implementing the ban because it is part of his goal to block Islam, then it becomes illegal under the PLAIN READING of the First Amendment.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

lol please refresh my memory how did the US ended with its own intolerant doctrines, esp towards women, gays, and non-believers (commies) ?
Invasion by an UN force? destabilized by a foreign country funding civil wars?

it's time to stop talking about "how bad is islam" and start talking why and how we got here

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it will. But it won't include left wing white radicalized communist groups. So don't worry, you can keep enjoying the antifa, bamn, alf, elf, sea shepard, and all those other violent extremist groups telling people to assault those who don't follow their political ideology.

So we can safely assume that you will be in charge of the ban policy?

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it wrong that whenever I read one of your posts that I picture Richard Stallman in a red vinyl cocktail dress, blonde wig askew with garish red lipstick hastily applied, surrounded by empty bottles of Diet Dr Pepper and discarded pizza boxes?

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[mvdwege]

There is of course the possibility that they actually are horrid bigots. But of course you "conservatives" just want a safe space where you can be a bigot without consequences.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[mvdwege]

No. The "Left", as you call it, or as I call it: people with fucking decency, disowned Dawkins because he used Islamophobia to chastise Western women to shut up about sexism and misogyny. That makes him a sexist asshole. And depending on how much he conflates Islam with 'looking Arabic' possibly a racist asshole too.

I am very sorry for you, but reality is not obliged to defer to your feelings, snowflake.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It doesn't 'require faith' to not believe in something. We don't endlessly posit the infinite things that COULD be and then require some sort of evidence to prove otherwise for each of these things. If there is evidence, you might believe something; depending on the evidence. Everything else, whether already imagined or waiting to be dreamed up, falls into the category of not worth considering. Consider that the concept of god, any concept that one could conceive, is simply an amalgamation of properties you have already experienced or the opposite of those concepts. For instance, you have experienced solidity so you imagine something without that quality. Most concepts are simply giant ghost daddy who lives in the clouds and is like really really smart.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[goose-incarnated]

. At some point, the left will have to deal with this schizophrenic conflict between what used to be called 'liberal values' and islam.

It's not as hard as you think, and it's not a schizophrenic conflict. It's garden variety human hatred. There's Islam, and then there's the hateful cult that justifies itself in its name.

Damn big cult, seeing as more than 2/3 of the Islamic population support Sharia Law ...

Stoning gays for being gay. How very progressive.

The problem is you are working under the mistaken belief that the Islamic regressives are a small minority of the Islamic population. They are not. They are the clear majority.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Mashiki]

So we can safely assume that you will be in charge of the ban policy?

A pro-speech conservative libertarian is a bad choice for a job like that. I'd just let everyone spew their shit and let the public make their own choice on it.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[AmiMoJo]

Sure, what I mean is that their rules generally try to avoid making any political judgements. It's only stuff like incitement to violence against individuals or groups, or glorification of murder that they are looking to block.

Well, some people were upset that they can't monetize their homophobia etc. but that's not even YouTube, it's the advertisers.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[AmiMoJo]

you have to recognize that this attempt to change the laws via the courts instead of legislation is frightening

It's the last line of defence against unconstitutional laws. That's the very reason you have a constitution. If there is no judiciary to check and limit the powers of the legislature, you live in a dictatorship.

A world where the plain language that allows the president to block entry to groups of people is ignored because of the assumption that the president is a racist- despite the fact that being a racist isn't illegal.

Read the court decisions. The constitution protects individuals from persecution based on their religion and certain other attributes. The people who wrote it were aware that their ancestors fled Europe because of religious persecution. And before you claim that it's not a Muslim ban, the courts cited Trump's own speeches and tweets stating that it was a Muslim ban.

He's like those stupid villains in comic books who can't resist telling everyone their diabolical plan, and then can't understand why it was thwarted.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Rockoon]

Young Turks is getting pretty big,

Sponsored by and supported by Google now, so ... yeah... amazing that the genocide deniers in this case are not just ok to stream... ok to support too

These guys literally did not know that the group they named themselves after committed a genocide, and instead of owning up to the mistake, they doubled down and denied that there was a genocide at all. Complete scumbag racists.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Rockoon]

Yes, the left are bigots.

Oh... thats not what you were getting at? Too bad, they are bigots due to the duck rule. Looks like a bigot. Acts like a bigot. Must be a bigot.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[mvdwege]

Ah yes, the tu quoque fallacy. The sort of playground-level debating you neandertals excel at.

Re: What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Barbra, that's some fancy words to hide the fact that you are a book-burning Fascist.

You have decided what is true. No debate. No arguments. You are the final arbiter.

Destroy anyone and anything who disagree.

Fascist.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[chihowa]

"Not believing in something" (roughly, agnosticism) is not the same as "asserting that something positively does not exist" (atheism). Agnosticism doesn't require faith, but atheism most certainly does. Atheism is just as irrational as theism.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, by liberal Silicon Valley rules, it will work like this:

Calling them "liberal" rules is deeply confusing. These people are authoritarians. It's even debatable to call them "leftist authoritarians", but it's certainly more accurate than labeling them liberals - even if they prefer to label themselves like this, it's a hijacking of the word liberalism in an attempt to deprive it of its meaning.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[squiggleslash]

I apologize to the two moderators who apparently do want the right to repost ISIS's recruitment videos, but you're still horrible, horrible, people, and the people who are pretending this is about political correctness are still fucking idiots.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[XxtraLarGe]

Ah yes, the tu quoque fallacy. The sort of playground-level debating you neandertals excel at.

Hey, what do you have against Neanderthals? Are you a bigot?

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the legitimate liberal view is that you shouldn't hate people because they are muslim, but muslims shouldn't subjugate their women, nor persecute gays etc.

BTW, given that etc is short for "et cetera," and & is short for "et" (if you squint at it you can see the e and t, tilt it 45 degrees cc), why don't we abbreviate it "&c"?

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

How very true... Islam is the untouchable religion. It's sickening.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

So are Christian regressives. You may not remember that only a decade or two ago it was a really big deal that we even acknowledged the existence of homosexuality.

Thing is, "supporting" a position and having thought about it and decided to take action are different things. If the majority of islamic people really wanted to kill all non-believers it wouldn't be that hard because they number in the billions.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes I wonder how much effort you people put in to digging up these extremists. I'm progressive, I donate money to progressive political candidates and vote for progressives, I support progressive causes. I've never heard of any of those groups.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Mashiki]

Sometimes I wonder how much effort you people put in to digging up these extremists. I'm progressive, I donate money to progressive political candidates and vote for progressives, I support progressive causes. I've never heard of any of those groups.

I don't. Every single one of those groups has been mentioned multiple times in the media in the last 5 years. Some have even been directly linked to other organizations which don't have a "violent" face. An example: ALF(Animal Liberation Front), has received direct and multiple payments from PETA. Individual actors in ALF, have as well -- before and after they commit attacks against people. Groups like sea shepard and so on have been around since the late 1970's and have a history of violence. If you're not hearing about this from "progressive" sources, it's because they don't want you to hear about them.

Groups like antifa have been popular in europe for years, they have a long history of violently assaulting people there as well and that was long before they crossed the pond. BAMN is a cross between an extremist organization and a violent cult. They separate people out, indoctrinate, force people to cut ties to families. They've been around hmm 15? 25 years? Long enough that the FBI has been watching them.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because political violence CAN be averted through discussion does not mean it will be. Good job missing the point, you shill.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[WDot]

Controversial ideas like eugenics were openly discussed in America too. Some people even attempted forced sterilization laws in a few states. They were mostly defeated. I can come up with historical anecdotes too! And mine don't invoke Godwin's Law!

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

We must stop the White Man resistance against their extermination by George Soros, Media Maters, etc. Zionists must have more control over the internet because the plan is failing with Trump.

Darvid Pakman is okay because he's an anti-white Zionist. Only people exposing the Globalization and Destruction of Western Civilization will be shut down.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[OhPlz]

Regardless of what POTUS said, it wasn't a muslim ban. There are plenty of countries where the religion is dominant that were not placed on the list. POTUS has the right by law to stop people from entering the country if there's reasonable belief that they intend to do harm. Why is it that it was okay when Obama did it, but not with the new guy? Hmm?

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. They are Secular Humanist Political commentators and Journalists who report on current events and extremists in the news. They are Agnostic Atheists who are critical of religion, and want to hold Government accountable.

The SJW crusade has come home to roost. When freedom of speech for once is questioned it will be questioned for all. Reap what you sow!

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

I despise them too, but it was fun to watch them lose the minds as the election results came in.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The whole idea of logical argumentation became hate speech a long time ago.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

"A world where the plain language that allows the president to block entry to groups of people is ignored because of the assumption that the president is a racist- despite the fact that being a racist isn't illegal."

The distinction wasn't being made on race, it was fairly explicitly being made on religion. "People from these 7 countries are banned, except people of 'religious minorities'" (Paraphrasing) -- based on his campaign rhetoric, this can be taken to mean "christians are welcome, muslims are not".

The first amendment explicitly fights against the establishment of a state religion. The courts have consistently held that this means the state can't institute religious tests because of this.

I know you idiots are all red vs. blue down there, but a real conservative believes in the rule of law. A real conservative believes in personal responsibility. A real conservative could never be elected in the US. Only a red could. And the red lemmings will line up behind their teenager in an old man's body because that's what the red vs. blue crowd do. They stand behind the person wearing their colours.

Well, as a conservative, I say this: Better dead than red.

And don't think team Blue gets off any better.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

So yes, this will be used to shut down totally conservative videos

Good, those fuckfaces should fucking DIE DIE DIE

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[butzwonker]

However, in order for broken ideas to die, they must be challenged.

Sadly, that's false on the Internet. :( On the contrary, on the Internet broken ideas are perpetuated in echo chambers and by hobby nutjob groups, transformed in a long series of "Chinese whispers" and rumors into fake news, copied again from the same sites, and end up in the mind of poor conspiracy schmucks who then drive to Washington D.C. to kill the "Pizzagate" pedophiles, claim that 9/11 was an insider job, or threaten to kill the parents of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre.

That being said, the Youtube filtering is maybe not about these isolated cases but more against widespread terror propaganda that e.g. shows how people are drenched in gasoline and burned alive like in the case of some ISIS videos. Millenials all across the world are attracted by ISIS propaganda to an astonishing degree. Many of them quickly change their minds when they come to Syria, but then it's usually too late.

'Extremism' is a relative term and has nothing to do with correctness.

Sure it's relative, but that doesn't mean that no clearcut set of criteria can be found. Someone is an extremist, for example, who intentionally instigates violence against noncombatant civilians and/or supports organizations on the UN 1267 Regime List and similar lists of terrorist organizations.

Even if you have problems with the lists, you should have no problem with marking anyone as an extremist who intentionally instigates violence against noncombatant civilians.

Re: What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Historically I was under the impression that the emerging Nazi party increasingly used violence to silence the opposition. This was do in part to my knowledge because the opposition banned much of the Nazi ideas from effectively being communicated. At one point I believe they even tried to ban Adolf Hitler from public speech. What I'm confused about is how your example didn't just help the point you were arguing against.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ad hominum. Who gets to decide that someone is extreme? Some so-called extremists may be right about their positions. Antifa and other protesters are paid by George Soros. He wants to destroy western civilization and get rid of all white people. All the countries that have no Muslims and refuse the Fake Refugees have no terrorism. Islam is a fascist extremist "religion." There are sound reasons to control immigration. Mixing all the races together eventually leads to civil war, especially with Muslims.

Israel is a nationalist state that's trying to get rid of Muslims and make a pure Jewish state and was sterilizing blacks. They won't take any "Refugees." Everone is required to give Israel billions in welfare payments.

Only white countries are shamed and brainwashed into receiving enormous mass immigration through the lying media. The internet has gotten in the way of this radical genocidal act of war on the west. That's why they're trying to shut down 100% of all media on the "right".

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the last line of defence against unconstitutional laws.

That last line of defense has been turned into a customary tool that sees frequent use. It finds its mate in the willful disregard of laws by the executive, such as Obama's refusal to execute faithfully the laws on deporting illegal aliens. Both are oligarchic end-runs around the legitimate acts of a democratically elected legislature. Notice that nobody proposed changing the law on citizenship: they know that can't pass the legislature and won't enjoy popular support, so they get a few unelected judges and the executive branch to bypass the law and disregard the will of the people. The same happened with gay marriage: California's proposition 8 was a referendum that put the question directly to the people, whose will was then discarded by the judiciary.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ideas often come from within. They can never truly be buried forever.

Actually, the ideas of this kind are usually kept living, prolonged past their proper death by people who should have been kept from such madness, but apparently it's wrong to stop them from doing so. Instead, by your preference, we've got to let them have those zombie corpses wander around, stinking up the joint, spreading their disease. No thanks!

Rarely(if ever, I've never seen it truly tested to be honest) does anybody conceive of such things in a novel fashion, but instead, it is more a case of being afflicted with the maledictions of the past.

Such infections should be excised, rather than tolerated.

If such ideas are truly broken then it should be simple for a society's elders to debunk them.

Unfortunately, it's often the elders who keep trying to dig up the bones. You might wish to choose a different word for those you suggest would exist to debunk broken ideas. Which includes the mistaken esteem for the "aged" that often exists.

It's one of those noxious ideas that needs to be properly excised. (And do spare me the rebuttal that's slinking through your mind at the moment.)

Most who challenge them will eventually understand why they're wrong and will learn the lesson as they should.

Not if you don't let us bury the ideas that should be dead. Put them in the graveyards where they belong I say. And make them stay there. Don't parade them around! Quarantine them from infection!

It is true that humans are poor at reliability and that not every student will learn the lesson, but this is still better than brutally repressing expression that is deemed untrue by some Ministry of Truth.

That just invalidates the legitimacy of established 'doctrine' in the eyes of those whose voices were suppressed, whether it is correct or not on the subject.

Perhaps if you would offer an explanation as to your reasoning?

Also, inevitably, such a Ministry would corrupt itself into uselessness as those running it jockey for control.

Ah, you believe that there is no improvement in the quality of mankind? A depressing state to be sure.

Good. That is the point of choice, being able to support some, and oppose others.

Choice for whom, though? I didn't say google doesn't have the right, just that it shouldn't when it comes to their youtube policies.

Why shouldn't they have the right to choose then?

Mysteriously, you have failed to articulate a persuasive argument for your contention. Maybe you thought you said something, but failed to notice your oversight in leaving it out?

or perhaps your reading comprehension skills failed you?

Nope, you genuinely failed to articulate a persuasive argument for your contention.

That extremism is merely a "relative term" and a "generic of blasphemy law and 'hate speech' law" is merely the latest mechanism that extremists have tried to use to defend themselves from the immunization methods being brought against them. Such extremists are not dopes, they are not fools, they are sophisticated and manipulative, and you're, at best, carrying water for them.

This doesn't address the issue of 'extremism', which bases the validity of a position on its distance from popular consensus.

I wasn't endeavoring to do so, I was pointing out that such "extremists" are responsive to the methods used against them, hence the need to be suspecting of your words. I'm not even considering myself bound by the term " extremists" anyway, as that is your choice, not mine. I reflected on the meaning of your attempted definition of it, so to speak. I think I'll put it in quotes to emphasize this.

A society that can't or won't face uncomfortable ide

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

And before you claim that it's not a Muslim ban, the courts cited Trump's own speeches and tweets stating that it was a Muslim ban.

Since when did Trump's speeches or tweets magically become part of the language in the executive order? If it were a Muslim ban, wouldn't ALL majority Muslim countries be banned?

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition to lumping everyone on the right to demonize them, you make a claim that Islam is less extreme because other religions are factioned and less extreme. I don't believe you. Studies show that a significant number of Muslim support extreme, violent, fascist positions. This could explains why wherever they go, they bring violence and extremism with them.

40% want Sharia Law. How much is enough to complain for you fools?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Look at the Saudi Soccer team. They refused to stand in silence for the British Terror victims. These people hate us. Get your brainwashed head out of your rear end, moron. Go look at the people standing for the victims after an attack. It's only white people. NO Muslims. There are no Muslim supporters of the west against terror. They hate the west and only support their own people, because EVERYONE is racist. That's why you can't just dump millions of FAKE refugees from Africa all over Europe. Because THEY are the RACIST ones. They hate the west. They want to destroy the west. They Hate women. There's NOTHING racist about having borders and letting them inhabit their OWN land. Let them stay in Africa and rape and stone women and gays to death and have 8 wives and twelve children and rape children and slaves and rape little boys, etc. Let them stay in their own savage country.

Jesus Christ, you brainwashed morons. People on the left have been shown that they only care about one thing: Compassion, at the expense of everything else. People like that are naive to the point of their own extinction out of failure to recognize signs of predatory behavior. I used to be very far on the left, myself. I understand this disease. But western civilization is under attack and the Globalists are deceiving you. Wake Up.

Re: What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

But we're doing that in history classes already.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn big cult, seeing as more than 2/3 of the Islamic population support Sharia Law [pewresearch.org]

They have Turkey at 12%, which is hilarious. The same country voted Erdogan into office, a guy that was banned for life from politics (until lifted by a friend) for reciting religious texts at official events and being member of an islam driven party. Those guys really need to work on their polling, or they could throw coins, costs less.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[JesseMcDonald]

You have your terms backwards. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in god(s), not a positive belief in the absence of god(s). The atheist does not go around asserting that god does not exist, but simply dismisses the question until and unless sufficient evidence is presented in favor of existence to merit consideration—the position people usually take on the existence of hypothetical entities with no supporting evidence. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a strictly neutral stance, considering both existence and non-existence equally likely. It grants more credence to the idea that god might exist than, say, the possible existence of invisible pink unicorns in your backyard, given equivalent evidence. Neither one requires faith, per se, but of the two agnosticism makes the more extraordinary claim. Atheism is just a straightforward application of Occum's Razor.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn big cult, seeing as more than 2/3 of the Islamic population support Sharia Law

Oh the horrors! You know, I realize Sharia Law is a big bogeyman for a lot of folks, but this is no more meaningful than believing the 10 Commandments should be supported.

Stoning gays for being gay. How very progressive.

Speaking of things that Christians resoundingly support...

The problem is you are working under the mistaken belief that the Islamic regressives are a small minority of the Islamic population. They are not. They are the clear majority.

The problem is that you are working under the mistaken belief that chastising "progressives" for what you purport is their acceptance of "Islamist regressive" is somehow overcoming the bigotry and viciousness which you don't want to admit is what "progressives" have an issue with, on a variety of sides, including the one claiming to oppose "Islam" out of some high-minded nobility. Except it is not.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

The moderators are wrong, there is no insight in your post. You complain about constitutionally guaranteed and regulated procedures, because you happen to not like some of their applications. First you mention a Supreme Court decision. It's fine if you don't like it, but it's still the decision of the Supreme Court. Then you go on and claim the president's executive orders were blocked because he's a racist - that's just 100% untrue and nonsense. They were blocked, because judges found the executive order unconstitutional, because it is racist. One reason for this was that Trump clearly stated that he wanted a Muslim ban, to the contrary of what White House officials stated in front of the court. The matter will go up to the Supreme Court, if the government wants to go that route, and that's exactly how things should be. There is nothing wrong with that. If you think otherwise, then maybe you should listen less to your president, who has shown several times already that he has no clue about the US legal and political system and its constitution. That's his personal problem, there is no need for you to make it yours.

and also claim that *there's no such thing as being white*

That statement is true. Gene comparisons show that the idea of phenotypical human races is outdated and untenable - it is simply not useful from a biological point of view for making fruitful comparisons. You're all mixed up anyway. You could just as well divide people into blue-eyed and brown-eyed people, or blond and dark-haired, etc. The phenotypical differences are superficial and unimportant. So yes, as for the other division you mention, that's equally silly, given that there is no clear-cut distinction between people of color and non-people of color or white and colored or white and black. So you can find stupid distinctions on either side of the "political fence" - what a surprise! (as if there was a real distinction between "left" and "right", too...)

Regardless of your political position, you have to recognize that this attempt to change the laws via the courts instead of legislation is frightening.

IMHO you are more frightening, because you seem to be willing to give up constitutionally guaranteed procedures and division of power whenever their application does not conveniently fit into your personal ideology.

Given that this is upsetting to almost all Americans, who were raised believing that race doesn't matter

Race doesn't exist in the form you suggest. That's the real problem. This was not known 40 years ago in the same form as it is known today due to advances in genetic sequencing. You are just as mistaken as the leftists you criticize. In reality you should rather talk about your ghettos and the tremendously increasing gap between poor and rich, which is by far the biggest problem the US faces and will face in the future. This trend has continued since the 50s of last century, and if you and your fellow countrymen don't do anything about it, you'll have a huge problem one day.

this will be used to shut down totally conservative videos

Okay, so let me get this straight. You've got an ultra-conservative president who surrounded himself with a mixture of other ultra-conservatives and some military junta, and still you're whining. It's hard to believe how whiny everyone has become in the US and how divisive people are arguing. Anyway, I'm happy that I don't live in your country. The damage that the current US government will do to the US is hard to estimate, but we can already say for certain that it's going to be way worse than George W. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld could achieve.

I don't deny that there is an aspect of SJW people that is equally retarded and only exists in the US, I have to grant that to you. Still, I will never understand why people think that gay marriage could affect their personal lives when they are not gay themselves. I live in a deeply catholic country that has had gay marriage for quite some time and no problems have ever occurred. I guess some of the "debates" in the US just don't make sense in more enlightened parts of the world.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

All you do when you challenge obviously broken ideas is give them credence, because people tend to think "well, if they're fighting the idea so hard instead of just ignoring it, there must be something there."

An intersting hypotesis.

However it begs the question: what if one challenges an idea without "fighting" it?
Does the same behavior still result if instead you challenge the holder of the broken idea to try and make practical use of their idea to solve theoretical problems, and see if it actually works as expected?

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[JesseMcDonald]

Science makes statements about how the world is, religion makes statements about how to be in the world.

Religion also typically makes statements about "how the world is" (e.g. "God exists and is actively involved in world events"). These statements are largely at odds with the statements made by science on the same topic. If your version of "religion" is limited to "how to be in the world" and says nothing about the existence of god(s) then congratulations, you're an atheist. Welcome to the club.

These domains are not orthogonal, either. If your prescriptions about "how to be in the world" are not informed by a solid foundation in "how the world is" the results are not likely to be what you expected.

Only if you're a simple-minded literalist do you think the creation stories and whatnot are there as history. Most people understand they're there as archetypical stories about how to live. ... You can both believe in the Big Bang, and believe e.g. in the moral lesson of the story of Cain and Abel...

Believing in "the moral lesson of the story of Cain and Abel" is perfectly compatible with being an atheist, so long as you're simply treating it as an ancient moral lesson and not as proof of the existence of god(s). Atheism does not mean rejecting every lesson ever taught under the guise of religion, just the absence of beliefe in god(s).

Re: What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[PopeRatzo]

Historically I was under the impression that the emerging Nazi party increasingly used violence to silence the opposition. This was do in part to my knowledge because the opposition banned much of the Nazi ideas from effectively being communicated.

No, that's not really true. Remember, speech was different then. There was no Twitter or Youtube or Stormfront or Breitbart. 1930 Berlin was considered a model for the free exchange of controversial ideas. Now, once Hitler started rising to power, then there was a great deal of suppression of speech, but not "controversial" speech. Just speech that went against Hitler's influence and ideas.

You just have to be careful in thinking that a corporation allowing certain types of speech on their platform is going to lessen violence. You could make a case that it only amplifies hate and violence.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[david_thornley]

Remember the baker that refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple? The couple should have just walked away and said "your loss." Instead, they made a huge stink, and crowdsourcing campaigns raised over $800,000 for the bakery owners - more than enough for them to retire.

From what I could gather from the court documents, the bakers must have been quite offensive to the couple, and then started an internet harassment campaign against them, hence the large award in the case against the bakers. Then they got $800K in donations, not any sort of taxpayer money. That means the money came from the asshole community itself, and wasn't an efficient assholish use of the money. I'm calling it a win for the good guys.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[david_thornley]

Sounds like a no true scotsman fallacy. Who decides what is 'abuse' of 'sacred' texts when the whole premise is based on faith and subjective interpretation?

I don't presume to rule on whether people are members of an organized religion or not (I'm not). I just call out groups as I see them. I am sufficiently familiar with Christianity to say that the Christians I have problems with don't appear to think that Jesus guy usually had a clue, but I don't know Islam that well.

I don't have to take a position on whether ISIS is really Muslim to condemn them. I can be OK with moderate Muslims in general without supporting all of their beliefs, and while doing things that run against many of their beliefs. (I don't really care whose beliefs I'm opposing, actually.)

You're wrong about progressives. In general, we sympathize with those we believe unfairly picked on. We generally believe Muslims are getting a bad deal in the West, and want them to have a better one. That doesn't mean we'll support anything because it's Muslim.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[david_thornley]

Unless there is repeatable, quantifiable evidence that god does not exist. atheism is just as unscientific as theism.

There is no repeatable, quantifiable evidence that there is not a teapot between the orbits of Earth and Mars, but if I said there was no such teapot people wouldn't call me unscientific. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God, and I suppose I could come up with a fancy term for lack of belief in a particular teapot. Suspension of belief means not believing, so suspension of belief in a god is atheism.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[chihowa]

This reminds me of arguing about this stuff with friends in high school. We've come to a simple dispute over semantics and definitions. Looking up these terms on wikipedia and in various dictionary gives a rather broad set of overlapping or conflicting results, so there is no commonly agreed upon definition here. Your conclusions also follow from your definitions. As there can exist no evidence of any of this, there's nothing scientific about it, though. Occam's Razor is a useful and logical tool, but it's not science.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[chihowa]

Russell's Teapot is is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. There's nothing scientific about making any absolute assertion without supporting evidence. Absolute assertions about metaphysics have nothing at all to do with science.

Anyway, the presence of such a teapot can also be empirically determined, if anyone cared to. In fact, there are some compelling arguments in the link you provided that show how poor of analogy the teapot is for its intended purpose. Comparing the likelihood of unlikely physical events to completely unobservable metaphysical events is shoddy logic.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Am in Singapore.

I don't know about the muslims elsewhere, but I doubt even 1/3 of muslims here support Sharia.

Hell, I am technically muslim. My parents / family is muslim.

My sis is married to a hindu.

My current girl is a christian. And I know for a fact that my parents are irritated by those females who are fully covered up in the name of religion. Maybe some parts of the world, with "brain washed" muslims, sure, you may have 2/3 wanting that crazy sharia legal system. In terms of where I am, a modern place with good education system, I think most of us will say hell no.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

As an agnostic, please don't confuse agnosticism with atheism or mix the terms together. It would be akin to saying someone is a Christian Catholic; it just does not make sense.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of what POTUS said, it wasn't a muslim ban. There are plenty of countries where the religion is dominant that were not placed on the list. POTUS has the right by law to stop people from entering the country if there's reasonable belief that they intend to do harm.

The court orders already told you, what POTUS said is not being ignored. In fact, his words indicated that he had NO reasonable belief, thus making his order unlawful, since he does not have the unfettered right you seem to mistakenly believe. He can't simply say what he did and walk away from it.

Why is it that it was okay when Obama did it, but not with the new guy? Hmm?

Besides not making his intentions suspect, Obama didn't rescind already processed paperwork, and have people sent home on arrival, without even allowing them to consult with attorneys.

That aspect of Trump's madcap, haphazard plan was ALSO part of the court order.

Did you not read it?

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[mvdwege]

For the peanut gallery: I did not imply that Kulinksi and Pakman are possibly bigots, but that someone who gets called one might just actually be.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would suspect that has something to do with Obama being a trained lawyer and being willing to adapt his methods based on the advice of others.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[david_thornley]

Okay, is it scientific to say there's no such thing as ghosts? I've seen scientists entirely discount the possibility of the paranormal, not just claim there's no good evidence for it.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[chihowa]

Instead of going through your long list of what isn't scientific, it might be simpler to enumerate what is. Science is the method used to understand phenomena using empirical or measurable evidence. Science does not have any utility in understanding the set of things which are not measurable or testable (eg, god, ghosts, interplanetary teapots).

Wikipedia has a decent article on the scientific method, which has a nice little definition: "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

In general, it is extremely unscientific to assert that anything doesn't exist. Doubly so if it is impossible to test that assertion. Again, from a helpful Wikipedia article.

In natural science, impossibility assertions (like other assertions) come to be widely accepted as overwhelmingly probable rather than considered proved to the point of being unchallengeable. The basis for this strong acceptance is a combination of extensive evidence of something not occurring, combined with an underlying theory, very successful in making predictions, whose assumptions lead logically to the conclusion that something is impossible.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[chihowa]

To follow up on your second sentence, a "scientist" doesn't speak from any position of authority and there is no weight to what a scientist says beyond what they can demonstrate through experiments and collected data. Anybody who asserts the impossibility of something without evidence, or especially if evidence isn't possible, is not using science.

Stating that something is improbable, based on the lack of expected evidence and a tested theoretical framework that doesn't allow for it, isn't unreasonable, but it requires a testable theoretical framework. The best argument against expecting to find Russell's teapot is that our existing physical frameworks don't allow for a mechanism by which something so specific would come to exist where it does. That's a logic and probability argument, though, and not a scientific one.

I do science for a living, and I think that god, ghosts, and Russell's teapot are improbable. However, I have no way to empirically test their existence so I can't say that they don't exist. They are simply not subject to scientific inquiry.

There are also certain religious or paranormal claims that can be tested empirically: religious claims that god has done, or will do, something in a predictable or repeatable way; claims that an observable ghost always appears at a certain place at a certain time...

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[david_thornley]

Thank you for the clarification.

Your last paragraph reminds me of all the post-Rapture looting parties I've had to cancel.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[chihowa]

Your last paragraph reminds me of all the post-Rapture looting parties I've had to cancel.

No kidding! I'm surprised that people even make claims like that anymore. I guess they're either true believers or conmen who intend to disappear before they have to face their pissed off flock.

Re:What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc.

[jwhitener]

That isn't how the youtube algorithm is working. It appears to be de-monetizing nearly anything about religion or conflicts or politics (except for big mainstream ones, like Fox/CNN, etc..).

You can make a video about how bad Isis is in the world, and it gets de-monetized. I hope youtube figures it out, because a lot of independent media and political channels have basically lost 99% of their revenue.

inflammatory religious or

[turkeydance]

anti-religous

Watch out Pewdiepie

[Anonymous Coward]

they're coming for ya!

Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are arabs wielding weapons, they are terrorists. If they are Americans dropping bombs on innocent people in the middle east, then they are freedom fighters, fighting for peace, democracy, and liberation. This is just another step in the creeping changes that will allow them to take down anything that doesn't agree with their status quo.

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what you whiny commie demoncrat terrorists do, censor everything you disagree with as "racist, misogynistic, homophobic, bigoted, etc" while they whine about how everything is not fair and how the rich are getting richer while they have nothing. Here's a clue, it is your party that advocated slavery and racism and misogyny. Oh? You don't remember your president letting the terrorists sip through while he was thinking with his balls rather being on the ball with the terrorists? Funny how you sure remember a fake news story about President Trump groping when in fact he did nothing of the sort. Face it, you whiny commie demoncrat terrorists will use anything to attack President Trump and accuse him of all of the problems in the history of the universe much like President George W. Bush. Other than bitching, moaning, whining, and crying about some vast right wing conspiracy and collect entitlement/retribution checks from the government the only action you demoncrats do beyond that is commit treason by giving aid and comfort to your friends, the terrorists.

Re: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Anonymous Coward]

Extremist videos==oliticaly Incorrect Videos, in disagreement with extreme left wing progressivist Mafia

SJW extremists, beware!

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is coming for your transgender bathroom videos.

Re:SJW extremists, beware!

[epyT-R]

On the contrary.. Those will be promoted as fine examples of tolerance and diversity. Videos which criticize this or the bases they operate on will be flagged as 'extremist', have their monetization revoked, and comments disabled.

Re:SJW extremists, beware!

[BarbaraHudson]

Google is coming for your transgender bathroom videos.

How is that SJW extremism? They're also coming for your cisgender bathroom videos. Dog whistle much?

They arrested the guy running the #CanadaCreep twitter account, laid some initial charges, and as the investigation expanded, re-arrested him and laid more charges.

One of my former bosses now owes me big time. Every guy was arguing in favour of making a web site that published "up-skirt" pictures, arguing that "it's not really porn." Turns out that voyeurism is a criminal offense, and so is publishing prurient content of under-age teenagers. The problem is that everyone is so eager to find any way to exploit the internet for a buck that the thinking is "how to get around the law" or "get as close to the edge as possible". And they were so excited about the idea that they practically jismed their pants in the conference room discussing it for several days, and how "it's not really, really illegal." WE had some nasty arguments about it.

You owe me, Dima, Sanjay, etc.

Re:SJW extremists, beware!

[Ol Olsoc]

On the contrary.. Those will be promoted as fine examples of tolerance and diversity. Videos which criticize this or the bases they operate on will be flagged as 'extremist', have their monetization revoked, and comments disabled.

How are you folks dealing with the mortal sin of non sexualized portable-potties at football games and other events?

It never bothered me because I simply do not equate urination or defecation as sexual. Just something you do because you are alive. I know there's rule 34, but there's gotta be a lot of projection going on here with the outraged.

Re: SJW extremists, beware!

[Anonymous Coward]

I look at it as simple as this: the man sign means the washroom is set up to accommodate people with penises (e.g. urinals). The woman sign means the bathroom is set up to accomodate people with vaginas (e.g. sanitary napkin disposal). Pictures of vaginas and penises are not used because of Victorian prudishness. Plus 20 years ago people were more intelligent and didn't need which of the signs has a penis and which one has a vagina pointed out to them.

If neither sign is on the door the bathroom is probably set up to accommodate penises and vaginas well. Although I have also seen such bathrooms set up for neither. You takes your chances.

Please use the bathroom configured for your genitalia. This isn't a prudish request, it's a logical one. Lest you be menstruating and find nowhere to place your used tampon.

Why, in 2017, I have to point out something as simple as this that my 7 year old understands to adults I don't know.

Re:SJW extremists, beware!

[epyT-R]

You tell me. How long until feminists decide that women are 'at risk' sharing bathrooms with men? What happens then?

There's no winning with such unreasoning.

Re: SJW extremists, beware!

[BlueStrat]

Why, in 2017, I have to point out something as simple as this that my 7 year old understands to adults I don't know.

Why? You are compelled to because you're a homophobic, racist, white-privileged, bigoted, Christian-moral-extremist hatemonger, intent on achieving your goal of a radical US Christian Theocracy, as your post proves by questioning what the authorities on genders decree from their public taxpayer-funded, tenure-protected, university gender-studies department positions. /s

Strat

Re: SJW extremists, beware!

[Ol Olsoc]

Lest you be menstruating and find nowhere to place your used tampon.

Why, in 2017, I have to point out something as simple as this that my 7 year old understands to adults I don't know.

Eeeeeeeewwwww Using the same facility where a woman who is menstruating has been in. Oh the horrors! Oh my god, man, You are creeping me out.

Did you know that women actually fart too?

Re: SJW extremists, beware!

[Ol Olsoc]

Why? You are compelled to because you're a homophobic, racist, white-privileged, bigoted, Christian-moral-extremist hatemonger, intent on achieving your goal of a radical US Christian Theocracy, as your post proves by questioning what the authorities on genders decree from their public taxpayer-funded, tenure-protected, university gender-studies department positions. /s

Strat

I can't stand the Gender studies crowd either, but people who have an issue with women's monthly cycle and the products they use to deal with it are pretty darn 1930's.

It's like so awful, I'll tell you what.. I've been to events where the person using the porta Potty before or after me have been women. We say hi as we pass each other, and don't even have a second thought. It doesn't make you a SJW to not see rest rooms as a place to hook up.

Re:SJW extremists, beware!

[Ol Olsoc]

You tell me. How long until feminists decide that women are 'at risk' sharing bathrooms with men? What happens then?

There's no winning with such unreasoning.

Dunno. They could told to move ot North Carolina?

Re: SJW extremists, beware!

[fafalone]

Oh please, people like you never acknowledge the central problem with 'use the bathroom of your genitals': if a transman like Buck Angel walked into the ladies room, women would flip their shit. And after he asserts he has a vagina, what is the reaction supposed to be? Call the cops because he's indistinguishable from a normal cis-man and have them examine his genitals? Have to drop his pants or show his ID to an attendant or any woman that asks? Entirely unworkable or excessively oppressive no matter what, because without verifying the parts of everyone entering there's no way to keep normal men out of the womens room in a system where using the one for your parts is legally mandated (and not just ignored), because unlike with transwoman you can rarely tell a transman from a biological man. And that's the part you have to address, because no man really gives a shit when a woman comes in to use the mens facilities, trans or not. Mandate and get it perfectly enforced, women wind up *more* uncomfortable.

Re: SJW extremists, beware!

[BlueStrat]

I can't stand the Gender studies crowd either, but people who have an issue with women's monthly cycle and the products they use to deal with it are pretty darn 1930's.

It's like so awful, I'll tell you what.. I've been to events where the person using the porta Potty before or after me have been women. We say hi as we pass each other, and don't even have a second thought. It doesn't make you a SJW to not see rest rooms as a place to hook up.

Porta-pottys are, by their nature and design, universal single-occupancy units. If some company wants to equip their units with tampon and rubber dispensers, I don't care. Being single-occupancy, sex of the user is irrelevant.

I have no problem with whatever sex someone believes they are, whether their lovers have different or the same bits, where they stick the bits, or anything else unless it causes harm. Different strokes for different folks, as we said back in the '60s/'70s. That's because I have respect for other people's choices.

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty sexes, or no sexes. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, to mangle an old Thomas Jefferson quote. I will stand with him to defend his right to believe and say so. But, if he attempts to force me by law, Act, or plain violent thuggery, to make positive affirmations or expend time, money, or labor to his cause, I shall stand in opposition, even if I agree with his beliefs.

Strat

Re: SJW extremists, beware!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, women are "uncomfortable"?

Good, damnit!

Serves them right for always stealing the cutest straight-dick and only leaving us the scrubs and creepers!

This is no longer about "equality", this is about "domination" you bitches!

Re: SJW extremists, beware!

[Opportunist]

What? No. That can't be.

Do their bathrooms actually have toilets? I never heard one say "Hey, Jenny, gonna take a dump!", all the do is go and powder their nose. And usually they need the aid of a friend to do it (one more reason why I can't picture them taking a shit, I mean, would you invite a buddy to go with you when you're about to put Mr. Hanky into the White House?). So I'd picture the ladies room as one with a lot of sinks and even more mirrors, but devoid of those icky parts where we men shit and piss.

Re: SJW extremists, beware!

[Ol Olsoc]

one more reason why I can't picture them taking a shit, I mean, would you invite a buddy to go with you when you're about to put Mr. Hanky into the White House?

Damn! You win the internet for today, Opportunist! Well played. 8^)

How about

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I'd be happy if they flagged all the shit like the flat-earth videos, the "spirit science" bullshit, and all the rest of the mystical anti-science garbage that pollutes Youtube like a punchbowl full of turds.

Re:How about

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be happy if they flagged all the shit like the flat-earth videos, the "spirit science" bullshit, and all the rest of the mystical anti-science garbage that pollutes Youtube like a punchbowl full of turds.

Yes, we must stop the rampant machinegunning of nursery schools by the legions of crazed flat-earthers.

Re:How about

[Opportunist]

No! For exactly that reason.

Yes, it's bullshit. But even bullshit must be allowed to be said. Even the worst kind of it. But, and this is critical, I must also be allowed to say that it is bullshit and present my rebuttal.

Let the people talk. Only bad ideas need censorship to survive.

Re:How about

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Yes, it's bullshit. But even bullshit must be allowed to be said. Even the worst kind of it.

I agree.

I probably wasn't clear enough in my original post, but I didn't say remove it, I said "flag" it, i.e. put a prominent "This May Be Bullshit" banner at the top or something along those lines. I'm not advocating for removing that kind of drivel but I do think that flagging it as potential horsecrap or pseudoscience would be in order.

Re:How about

[Opportunist]

So far, the people creating the content have been pretty good at that. Generally if it includes blown minds or the demand that YOU MUST WATCH THIS, it's usually a pretty good indicator that you're in for grade A bullshit.

If everything fails, take a quick look below the video, if comments are disabled it is a perfect indicator.

/. just as guilty

[sn0wflake]

It's actually funny how /. reports on censorship when they have their own censorship is implemented. Say one bad thing about Linux and your karma is reduced to bad.

Re:/. just as guilty

[BarbaraHudson]

It's actually funny how /. reports on censorship when they have their own censorship is implemented. Say one bad thing about Linux and your karma is reduced to bad.

That's not slashdot - that's the users.

Re:/. just as guilty

[Ol Olsoc]

Bullshit.

Re:/. just as guilty

[sn0wflake]

A score of 2 a few minutes after replying with the word "Bullshit". Typical /. even after 20 years. /. is the last bastion of delusional Linux fanatics :D Very amusing actually :D

Re:/. just as guilty

[Cmdln Daco]

I would say the score of 2 probably came a few millisconds after the reply. Dude has a good enough rep and doesn't check off 'no karma bonus' and gets a default 2.

Something you've probably never had the option of doing, eh?

Re:/. just as guilty

[sn0wflake]

It's the same old group that will never evolve despite how /. they are.

Re:/. just as guilty

[Opportunist]

That's not /., that's groupthink. And that works everywhere.

Go to a flat earth board. Debunk every single of their claims. Then wait to be railroaded out of town.

Being right is one thing. But at the end, what matters is who is left to continue speaking.

Re:/. just as guilty

[Opportunist]

If you want to see your Karma do a roller coaster ride, say anything about systemd. Whether good or bad doesn't matter, it will be the only comment with 10 underrated and 10 overrated without any other moderation.

Re:/. just as guilty

[sn0wflake]

Good comment. I like you.

Re: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Anonymous Coward]

I usually don't agree with weirdos like you. But with them disabling comments on the videos and leaving the video up what else could it be?

Re:"YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Anonymous Coward]

This means no conservative pundits Muslims beheading is ok but anyone getting even close to the truth about the left and career politicians DAS IST VERBOTEN!!!

but why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't they find a sweet spot where extremism can be swept into a program of some sort that weights extremist's views into a category that casts their viewing preferences into some ultra-moderate category?

It's about time

[Anonymous Coward]

they cracked down on all those cat-on-a-Roomba videos.

WAY too extreme.

Re:"YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[BarbaraHudson]

Pay them a bounty. You'll get a lot more participation. And if they don't keep their "correctly identified" ratio high enough, they get dumped. Money talks.

We've seen it work with everything from rewards for reporting crime to bug bounties.

But it will be to hard to police!" Seriously? That's not an excuse. You're supposed to be so good at AI - have AI look for patterns of abuse of the bounty system. Or is it time to admit that your "targeted ads platform" isn't all that capable after years of work, showing people ads for stuff they already bought, etc? Same problem as Amazon?

Last I heard they had their ads back

[rsilvergun]

Also nice to see somebody else on /. notice them :). Youtube is mostly after the groups advocating violence and racism since those tend to be what really scares the bejeebees out of advertisers.

Re:Last I heard they had their ads back

[Luckyo]

Did you already forget the recent "pewdiepie is a nazi" debacle?

Re:Last I heard they had their ads back

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, I didn't forget him paying two indians 5 dollars to hold up a sign saying death to all jews.

Is it any wonder youtube is wanting to get rid of this sort of thing?

Re:Last I heard they had their ads back

[Anonymous Coward]

Taken out of context and selectively interpreted. You might have a future with a propaganda network like CNN.

Re:Last I heard they had their ads back

[Anonymous Coward]

Advertisers aren't scared of getting money, even from 'racist' videos. What happened is George Soros' Gestapo Media Matters went after these advertisers and threatened them to shut down conservative voices that are getting in the way of their No Borers for White People agenda.

complaints already

[harvey the nerd]

Youtube has no credibility on important news topics and critical content covered by the libertarians-paleoconservatives trying to stem various forms of genocide. The ideological libertarians of classical liberalism, not the apologist hijackers of crony capitalists.

Ah /.

[GrahamJ]

Pretty much every comment here is "They'll remove things they shouldn't!" or "They won't remove things they should!"

Maybe we should let them actually do something before deciding if they're doing it wrong or not.

Personally I'd rather err on the side of removing content that incites violence.

Re:Ah /.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you want them to remove CNN?

Re:Ah /.

[garlicbread2]

I think this is largely due to the recent "Ad Apocalypse" where a large number of channels lost they're ad's and funding.

China Uncensored is one example, video's being taken down because some random word that's a part of a video game title is another, then there's all the dmca take downs that are very hard to appeal against.

Say something someone doesn't like and suddenly it's considered "hate speech"
The right to free speech also means the right to be offended and that's the problem, a lot of it is subjective. If they can't be trusted to do the right thing before why should they be trusted to do the right thing now?

Re:Ah /.

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel that your comment's intolerance incites me towards violence.

Re:Ah /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for weighing in, Dr. Dipshit! Let's stop forming opinions about censorship until they censor stuff. Brilliant.

Re:Ah /.

[swillden]

I think this is largely due to the recent "Ad Apocalypse" where a large number of channels lost they're ad's and funding.

China Uncensored is one example, video's being taken down because some random word that's a part of a video game title is another, then there's all the dmca take downs that are very hard to appeal against.

You seem to be talking about two different things as though they're one.

DMCA takedowns apply to material that is alleged to infringe someone's copyrights. When an online provider receives a takedown, they are legally obliged to take the content down. DMCA takedowns aren't at all hard to "appeal against"; you just file a counter-notice and the material goes back up. Then, if you actually infringed their copyrights, the owner of the material sues you. They can do this because in the counter-notice you have to tell them who you are.

This story is about hate speech and violence. Unless it's graphic violence (e.g. a beheading), YouTube does not take the material down. They just don't advertise on it. It sounds like in some particular cases they're also going to try to steer people towards anti-radicalization videos.

The right to free speech also means the right to be offended and that's the problem, a lot of it is subjective.

You can post offensive stuff on YouTube all you like. Not only does YouTube not censor you (barring nudity, violence, etc.), but they'll deliver your message to anyone in the world, for free! You won't get paid for posting your offensive content, but that has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Re:Ah /.

[Anonymous Coward]

No the error should be on the side of freedom of speech not on knee jerk reaction to remove content. This attitude will lead to the slippery slope of continued increase in censoring. The focus should be on educating people to ignore the incitement to violence and understanding why it is wrong.

Re:Ah /.

[SuricouRaven]

Youtube are just reacting to the demands of advertisers. Advertisers are very protective of their brand associations - they don't want their ad appearing right before someone launches off on a profanity-laden rant, or be seen implicitly endorsing a very fringe political view by advertising next to it.

Re:Ah /.

[Opportunist]

With the funding cut being the one that makes the least sense when the goal is, as stated, fighting hate speech and extremist videos. Does anyone really believe that fundamentalist, religious hate groups give half a shit about "monetizing" their videos?

So what purpose is that supposed to really serve?

Re:Ah /.

[Opportunist]

So the content is not offensive enough to actually slander someone or incite violence, which would justify taking it down, but just in the "we don't like your opinion" ballpark?

Re:Ah /.

[Opportunist]

Too bad. I'd buy the crap from someone who supports the YouTubers I like to watch.

Re:Ah /.

[Opportunist]

Good. Do you need directions or do you prefer to choose your targets yourself?

Re:Ah /.

[swillden]

So the content is not offensive enough to actually slander someone or incite violence

I don't think YouTube's policies prohibit slander. If someone publishes a video slandering you, I think your only recourse is a lawsuit, same as in "old media".

So the content is not offensive enough to actually slander someone or incite violence, which would justify taking it down, but just in the "we don't like your opinion" ballpark?

More precisely, in the "our advertisers don't want to show their ads next to your opinion" ballpark.

Re:Ah /.

[Opportunist]

That's odd. I would have expected advertisers, usually being large corporations, to be more on par with the conservative narrative than the liberal one...

Re:Ah /.

[Spamalope]

Today's common is owned by a private corporation with a political agenda. The enlightenment ideal based protections for speech don't contemplate the protections needed for such a situation.
I've seen arguments that roughly say 'you're free to create your own video hosting platform' and in practice they're equivalent to saying you're free to make your own common in the deep woods where no roads or people are.

DMCA takedowns aren't at all hard to "appeal against"; you just file a counter-notice and the material goes back up.

This story is about hate speech and violence.

Google soft censors based on political or cultural message. Dishonestly limiting the reach of messages opposed to your political interests while hiding behind 'hate speech' and 'think of the children/advertisers' rhetoric is not moral high-ground position

Copyright strikes are abused, Google allows them by 3rd parties against the original artist provided they're against someone small or politics they don't favor. Critics run into this problem regularly. (for a non-politically charged example) Copyright law allows for commentary and criticism, but if you post a three part series exposing flaws in a game or piece of software the author can then threaten you with a 3-strike lifetime ban from google because google is known to back them up.

Wargaming EU publicly stated they would never do that and granting license to all players to post videos of any game play, then recently they privately threatened to file hundreds of DMCA claims against a reviewer, and denied ever having made the threats - but were caught via screen shot. Just a private battle for damage control appeared to be succeeding (several popular reviewers were leaving), Wargaming US PR head (possibly unaware of the threat screen shots and damage control underway) made a post labeling the targeted video racist/sexist/homophobic. It was none of those things, though it was salty and harshly critical of the game. That highlighted the elephant in the room. Any company employee at any time could file copyright claims against any reviewer or lets play vlogger resulting in a lifetime ban from youtube for that vlogger. Google doesn't sustain appeals in cases like this.

Re:Ah /.

[swillden]

That's odd. I would have expected advertisers, usually being large corporations, to be more on par with the conservative narrative than the liberal one...

Anything that offends roughly half of the population is going to be something they want to stay away from, regardless of notions of which political stripe it falls under.

Re:Ah /.

[Opportunist]

So pretty much anything political is out the window.

Re:Ah /.

[swillden]

Google soft censors based on political or cultural message.

"Soft censorship" is a ridiculous expansion of the notion of censorship. Freedom of speech says that you have a right to speak your mind, not that you have a right to demand payment for doing so. Historically, it's actually been on the speaker (or someone sympathetic to them) to pay for the dissemination of their message to large audiences. Being able to do it for free is a step forward, not backward. The fact that someone managed to get paid by YouTube's advertisers in the past in no way means that anyone is obligated to continue paying them.

I've seen arguments that roughly say 'you're free to create your own video hosting platform

Such arguments are silly, because there's nothing preventing you from using YouTube's video hosting platform to deliver your message (unless it's hate speech, etc.). You won't get paid for it if the advertisers don't want to associate the ads with your content, but creating your own video hosting platform wouldn't help with that, because the advertisers aren't going to want to be there, either.

Dishonestly limiting the reach of messages opposed to your political interests while hiding behind 'hate speech' and 'think of the children/advertisers' rhetoric is not moral high-ground position

What sort of messages opposed to Google's "political interest" are you talking about? Anti net-neutrality messages?

Copyright strikes are abused, Google allows them by 3rd parties against the original artist provided they're against someone small

I agree there are problems for small content owners. The DMCA process doesn't scale very well, and YouTube addresses this with pre-emptive arrangements with big entities, but that doesn't work for small ones. I disagree with the three-strikes policy. I understand its motivation, but I don't think it's the right solution.

or politics they don't favor.

That's a bold claim. Got any evidence?

Re:Ah /.

[swillden]

So pretty much anything political is out the window.

Anything sufficiently extreme, yes. Such is the nature of ad-supported media. Note that I'm not claiming YouTube applies this rule very accurately or consistently, especially not right now when they're madly trying to retool to address the recent batch of advertiser withdrawals. But the general principle that advertisers get to decide what sorts of content their ads show on makes perfect sense.

On the other hand, because on YouTube ads can just be removed from the specific types of videos that advertisers dislike, YouTube is actually more tolerant of extreme views than a newspaper could be. Allowing extreme views in the editorial page -- even deciding to print sufficiently extreme letters from readers -- can cause advertisers to pull their ads from the paper completely, thus giving advertisers even greater influence over the content that is published. The same could happen with YouTube, but advertisers seem content as long as they can be certain their ad isn't juxtaposed directly to offensive content.

Re:Ah /.

[Anonymous Coward]

They've already targeted and demonetized people they shouldn't with their current policies. Basically anything that might conceivably offend someone will be demonetized right now -unless you are posting from a larger mainstream outlet. Tools like Patreon and in video ads are the only way someone offering content that might be challenging to the mainstream orthodox view can continue.
 
  Since this is basically a continuation of their previous efforts over the last year I think it a fair prediction.

Re:Ah /.

[Opportunist]

No, not extreme. ANYTHING political. Criticize anything Trump said and you offend one half of the population. Applaud it and you offend the other half. Actually, you don't even have to criticize or applaud, it's enough if they FEEL like you do. I.e. when your commentary isn't slanted enough toward their preferred side. Because you are not allowed an unbiased position. You're either FOR or AGAINST. And if you're against, it also automatically means that you're for ... whoever is the big enemy of the group you dared to criticize.

That means the ONLY ones that can actually "afford" to give you any kind of political commentary are those that gain revenue from somewhere else, i.e. not selling your eyeballs to some advertising company.

Now take a wild guess just what kind of political "commentary" and "information" this leaves to exist.

Re:Ah /.

[david_thornley]

DMCA takedowns apply to material that is alleged to infringe someone's copyrights. When an online provider receives a takedown, they are legally obliged to take the content down. DMCA takedowns aren't at all hard to "appeal against"; you just file a counter-notice and the material goes back up. Then, if you actually infringed their copyrights, the owner of the material sues you. They can do this because in the counter-notice you have to tell them who you are.

That isn't a required legal process. It's what a site can do to be safe from liability.

If you upload something to YouTube, I can't just sue YouTube even if it infringes my copyrights. I send a DMCA takedown notice. If YouTube doesn't take it down, I can sue YouTube as well as you for copyright infringement. If YouTube isn't worried about this, they aren't going to take it down. They may not be worried about it because they know I don't have the copyright, or because they don't think I'll sue, or any number of reasons. (Note that, to file a legit takedown notice, I have to name a copyrighted work that I have the copyright of, or that I legally represent the copyright holder, and then claim the video infringes on that copyright. The first part is under pain of perjury, the second isn't. If I say I have the copyright on this post, and that your video infringes on it, that's a legal takedown notice.)

Now that YouTube has taken it down, suppose you file a counterclaim. If YouTube puts your video back up, it's not liable to you for interruption of service or anything like that. Of course, YouTube wasn't liable in the first place, so they don't have to do anything about the counterclaim. If YouTube had some sort of contractual obligation to you, they could follow the counterclaim procedure and avoid any legal liability to you.

Re:Ah /.

[swillden]

Yes, I gave the short version. I suppose I could have said "obliged to take the content down if they want to avoid being sued". And you're right that they have no obligation to restore it after receiving the counterclaim.

Re:Ah /.

[swillden]

No, not extreme. ANYTHING political. Criticize anything Trump said and you offend one half of the population.

But not enough to scare away advertisers. Lots of YouTube videos criticize Trump and lots applaud Trump, and both sorts get ads. It takes something much more extreme to trigger advertisers to be worried.

Re:Ah /.

[Opportunist]

The question is, do their makers get the ad revenue?

Re:Ah /.

[swillden]

The question is, do their makers get the ad revenue?

If ads run, the ad revenue is shared. I'm not sure I understand the question.

Re:Ah /.

[strikethree]

Personally I'd rather err on the side of removing content that incites violence.
Flag as Inappropriate

Oops. I copied and pasted a little extra there but I like it. The juxtaposition of my words and that little extra is just delicious. lol.

So what you are saying is that there are ideas so nasty, despicable, and abhorrent, that they should not be allowed to be discussed in a civilized society.

Fuck you. Go live somewhere uncivilized where they practice that kind of shit.

Hm. Wait. That is everywhere! Fuck people. I side with the terrorists. Not because I like what they are trying to achieve but because I fucking hate you and people like you.

I will think about what *I* want to think about and discuss it with anyone who is interested. Try and stop me and I will try and kill you. Fair is fair. :)

I am confused as to why people that I despise are doing work that I despise are having outcomes that I like. Such a weird world. Maye you guys should stop being assholes and people will stop flipping out and trying to kill you? (it is not lost on me that i am being an asshole by saying "fuck you", how cool is that? (even weirder, i do not really hate, i just get a little motivated about shit that annoys me... like you supporting censorship))

Kind regards,
Dave

Re:Ah /.

[jwhitener]

Well I hope they do something, because what is happening now is stupid. Their algorithm is basically flagging anything even remotely related to religion, politics, any sort of conflict, and de-monetizing it.

For instance, make a video that is critical of terrorism. De-monetized instantly. Shows like this have lost 99% of their youtube revenue: https://davidpakman.com/ .

Who determines what is extremist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who determines what extremism is?
Kathy Griffith's "beheading" of Trump anyone?
How about that Broadway play that depicts assassination of the President in the manner of Julius Caesar?
What about those on the left that call for killing all republicans or all conservatives?

Will Google and the other companies stop those videos?
When does this enter into the area of preventing free speech?

Don't censor at all, and if you feel you have to censor, then make sure you censor EVERYONE, thus ensuring the demise of your platform.

Re:Who determines what is extremist?

[AHuxley]

Groups of SJW

Re:Who determines what is extremist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who determines what extremism is?
Kathy Griffith's "beheading" of Trump anyone?

No

How about that Broadway play that depicts assassination of the President in the manner of Julius Caesar?

No.

What about those on the left that call for killing all republicans or all conservatives?

Yes.

I'm not sure why everyone seems to think this is political or difficult at all. Violent extremeism is pretty darn obvious across the whole political and religious spectrum. There is surprisingly little that is ambiguous. People that advocate violence are not subtle about it, it would be counter productive.

Re:Who determines what is extremist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I don't think a blanket ban on promoting violence is going to destroy their platform. Unless your only visibility to their platform is watching channels full of nutters promoting violence, which it seems is the case for many slashdotters.

Google has to act like a country now

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, it could bring out the ultimate EULA.Click on I feel lucky or Abort

LINUX users are NEXT!

[Anonymous Coward]

https://arstechnica.com/securi...

https://www.linuxjournal.com/c...

https://www.linuxjournal.com/c...

Wear with pride:
https://www.linuxjournal.com/f...

Re: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for your input Milo.

So based on your logic.

[Anonymous Coward]

If a minority male asks a White man for sex, and the White refuses because the former is a minority, the White is criminally guilty of racism and gay bigotry? Because that's what the end game to all this is.

Re:So based on your logic.

[BarbaraHudson]

And this is why idiots who troll slashdot don't use real names. Discrimination is narrowly defined. Go look it up. There is nowhere any law that says you must accept sex from any person. Even wives are now allowed to charge their husbands with rape if there is no consent.

Re: So based on your logic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude. You're trying to argue with a Bay area tranny. You're wasting your time.

Re:So based on your logic.

[lgw]

"Discrimination" is a normal word, mean roughly to choose according to some criteria. Discrimination about one's sexual partner is the most fundamental (and important, in the long term) kind of discrimination. And, BTW, almost everyone discriminates based n race when it comes to sexual partner.

There is nowhere any law that says you must accept sex from any person.

Yet, but it sure seems to be where we're headed. How long till it's a hate crime to refuse sex when you discover that woman you've been dating has a penis?

Heck, we've seen a case under the rules at university where a man was drunk to unconsciousness, or at least appeared so, and an nearly-as-drunk woman gave him a blow job. The man was tossed out of the school for sexual assault.

The rules imposed by the progressives won't make logical sense, or follow any tradition because the progressive left is founded on post-modernism, which explicitly rejects both logic and tradition as tools of the oppressor. It's all Calvinball.

Re:So based on your logic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet, but it sure seems to be where we're headed.

Also a world where Strawmen are real! Made of Glass!

How long till it's a hate crime to refuse sex when you discover that woman you've been dating has a penis?

Forever. Also we won't be sentencing you to organ donation for too many traffic tickets, or force you to become a mechanical man so you can hunt space vampires.

Heck, we've seen a case under the rules at university where a man was drunk to unconsciousness, or at least appeared so, and an nearly-as-drunk woman gave him a blow job. The man was tossed out of the school for sexual assault.

Now give us an actual identification for the case so we don't know you made it up or misrepresented the circumstances.

Wouldn't be the first time you were misinformed at that.

The rules imposed by the progressives won't make logical sense, or follow any tradition because the progressive left is founded on post-modernism, which explicitly rejects both logic and tradition as tools of the oppressor. It's all Calvinball.

Yeah, those strawmen you construct are totally wild and crazy. They don't even understand the Pythagorean theorem!

Re:So based on your logic.

[lgw]

AC is for shitposting. If you want to discuss something, log in.

Re:So based on your logic.

[Anonymous Coward]

AC is for shitposting.

Nope, as you quite evidently can shitpost regardless, res ipsa loquitur.

If you want to discuss something, log in.

If you want to discuss something, do it. Or don't.

Re: So based on your logic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit poster.

Re:So based on your logic.

[mjwx]

"Discrimination" is a normal word, mean roughly to choose according to some criteria.

What the GP clearly meant was "illegal discrimination" and pretending otherwise just demonstrates that you don't have the necessary IQ to have discussion about it.

Yet, but it sure seems to be where we're headed. How long till it's a hate crime to refuse sex when you discover that woman you've been dating has a penis?

That has and only ever will exist in the minds of extremist right wing nut jobs trying to draw false equivalence because they don't understand the subject, but want to oppose it anyway (well until someone picks on them, then they want that person silenced because RWNJ's can never stand up to criticism).

The rules imposed by the progressives won't make logical sense

The problem is, what you think are progressives are just a figment of your imagination. You fail to grasp the basics of the proposed rules and think that they all about eliminating your freedom to be an arsehole (and have everyone silently agree with you whilst being an arsehole).

Re:Not needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you allowed to drop 500lb bombs on Jeff Sessions and Mike Pence?

Re: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[mrclevesque]

So they're doing it to spite the extremist mafia?

Censorship should be limited to criminal activity

[dcavanaugh]

Otherwise, YouTube becomes a cesspool of fake news and political correctness. I don't expect YouTube material to be vetted, confirmed, or "proven", and that's part of the appeal. There are a lot of hypersensitive snowflakes who would flag every opinion that doesn't agree with theirs. Hell, I expect a few downvotes for simply mentioning this possibility -- which will prove my point.

Re:"YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's paranoia.

Re:Not needed

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish that there was a real alternative to Google that valued free speech in all of its forms. Let the hate flow so there is a chance that things could be resolved instead of it being hidden, ignored and left to grow out of sight.

Did you know that...

[Anonymous Coward]

...gays are now accusing straight people of homophobia for the simple matter of them being straight and not wanting to engage in relations with the same sex? That's right, if a guy refuses to suck off another guy, he's labeled as a bigot.

Re:Did you know that...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, civilised people correctly call out gay bashers as homophobes, because they are. If they weren't, they would simply live their lives without the intense, irrational focus and hatred on gay people.

Re:Did you know that...

[BarbaraHudson]

Idiot troll wrote:

...gays are now accusing straight people of homophobia for the simple matter of them being straight and not wanting to engage in relations with the same sex? That's right, if a guy refuses to suck off another guy, he's labeled as a bigot.

Quit making shit up.

Re:Did you know that...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, just lable everyone else as a troll and you automatically win the argument. Bravo, I see you've been following the leftist handbook to the letter. How can reality even compete?

Re: Did you know that...

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're still making ship up.

when is it ok to kill free speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

especially in america? hate speech is protected, so this is a form of censoring free speech if it is a video made in the usa by americans. it's never ok to limit free speech, regardless of anything else. i get that google is a private company, but with the rights being eroded left and right by the government, its left to private companies to stick up for the rights of citizens. they should have a grading system of some sort, and the ability to view or block the content left to the end users. soon any speech the gov't doesn't like will be targeted. a bleak dystopian future is becoming the present.

Re:when is it ok to kill free speech?

[AHuxley]

When international ads, funding and support pulls out.
Think of the tourist ads, the funding for US movies by nations with communist parties.
Their ads and movies trailers/reviews get special consideration by SJW.
No history, no politics, no human rights comments, no mention of was, no blasphemy, no reviews of some authors, no negative reviews about big brand movies, scripts.

Re:"YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[AHuxley]

Blasphemy, so a cartoon is reported.
Talks on the history of a communist party or its leadership? Banned.
Book reviews by authors that SJW don't like? Banned?

Re:Not needed

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't remember either throwing a gay man off of a building. Citation please.

Re: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much this.

Anyone using "Islamic Terrorism", "SJW", etc will be demonetized and suspended.

Meanwhile, guys screaming "Death To 'Murica! Allayouse Snackbars!" and preaching how good it is to go out and blow up people. Or dipshits screaming "Black Power! Kill Whitey! Black Power! Kill Whitey!" or "Everyone who's not ME is a NAZI! I'm going to kill nazis!" or "Let's get all guys together and castrate them with a dull spoon!"

All those ass nuggets will be free and clear. Because we wouldn't want to further disadvantage them in life and maybe be RACIST or SEXIST or MISOGINIST or WHATEVER-IST!

I trust Google about as far as I can shot-put a concrete-filled main battle tank.

Aiding ISIS is treason. Target that alone.

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems simple enough that creating videos that spread propaganda or encourage ISIS recruitment is simple treason in almost every country. It is very narrowly defined and unlikely scoop up other content.

Just like there is a difference between saying "I don't like a religion and here's why" and spreading terroristic threats. There has to be a legal threshold.

Flagged.

[BrookHarty]

The worst common offending extremist videos are youtube approved sponsors, and they get pushed to the trending page.

The Young Turks has videos calling out for death for conservatives and Trump, with extreme foul language, that would never pass for FCC standards. And youtube puts them on the trending page all the time.

If TYT can call for the death of people, and yet still be approved because its leftist shock journalism, their 63 current content groups are just political groups censoring conservatives.

Other conservative FCC quality videos that actually AIR ON THE RADIO are removed, blocked, and censored because of these 63 and youtube censors.

Everyone knows whats going on, lets not even try to pretend that google doesn't have an agenda to fight conservatism.

Re:Flagged.

[Ambassador Kosh]

Where is a link to one of their videos calling for the death of someone? I don't watch their channel but every few months a single video from them will show up as recommended. While they are pretty strange I have not seen them call for someone to be killed.

Overall I hate this whole right vs left thing because I think ideas get classified as one or another and then discarded on that basis instead of sitting down and having a rational discussion. Sometimes the right is correct, something the left is correct, usually a combination is a vastly superior approach.

1) I do think we should be aware of who enters and leaves the country and do more to control the borders but I want all the methods based on actual science and using technology that can be shown to actually be effective. I don't want methods that are just designed to make people feel safe without actually making them safe.

2) H1B should go to the highest bidder. That would simplify the regulations, oversight and ensure that the most qualified people actually get the jobs.

3) We should carefully look at universal health care. Right now we have many federal and state healthcare programs and most can't negotiate for drug prices while healthcare is a large burden for starting a new company. A single payer health care system should be cheaper and have far fewer regulations involved while offering superior coverage. This would also make it easier for people to change jobs or take risks and startup a company. There is no real reason a drug that costs $1 in canada should cost $100+ in the USA and most of that seems to be lack of negotiation on drug prices.

Re:Flagged.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Alex, saw your interview on NBS... you're a quack.

Re:Flagged.

[Opportunist]

Google has an agenda. It's called money. Throw money at them and they promote fascism, communism, democracy or feudalism, depending on what you'd prefer.

Re:Flagged.

[jwhitener]

Youtube could care less about the content. This all started happening because big advertisers like Ford, Walmart, etc, noticed that their ads were being displayed randomly across all sorts of youtube videos. And some of the videos were ones that the big companies didn't want their name associated with.

We are not the customers of youtube. Ford/Walmart, etc.. those are the customers that youtube is trying to please.

So youtube basically de-monetized ANY video that was even remotely "controversial". Critical of terrorism? Bam, no ads. In favor of terrorism? Bam no ads. Left wing, bam no ads. Right wing, bam no ads.

"their 63 current content groups are just political groups censoring conservatives."

Complete and utter bullshit. This liberal show lost 99% of their youtube revenue: https://davidpakman.com/

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Censorship should be limited to criminal activi

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't expect YouTube material to be vetted, confirmed, or "proven", and that's part of the appeal.

I'm sorry Citizen, but unvetted, unfiltered, unscreened, and raw video sharing is simply too dangerous & unpredictable for us to allow, as it enables the dissemination of dangerous and destructive ideas, and exposes things embarrassing and damaging to the State, causing the cattle to become nervous, uncertain, and upset, which in turn could lead to a stampede, causing us to have to cull a large percentage of the herd. Profits and our control might suffer. That cannot be tolerated.

Money v reputation v terrorism v free speech

[shanen]

Not really hoping for any funny comments, but there is great room for insight on this topic, and I wasn't able to detect much based on such mods or my keyword searches. Unfortunately, I feel lacking in motivation on behalf of what is left of Slashdot. I thought I had a couple of minutes to spare, but the pending task was completed so my time priorities have been rearranged and I should leave soon. So...

The analysis of the "Comment Subject:" is entirely intuitively obvious starting from the sig below, but in the lack of time, I'll just close with the hint: How does it profit the google to support terrorists? If you find that wording too abrasive, then here's a "softer" form: Why does the google find it convenient and cost effective to provide so much free publicity to people who are essentially using jujitsu against free speech to destroy the societies that most value democracy, apple pie, and all that jazz?

Re: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes exactly. Seems this is "if your idea isn't in agreement with modern SJW leftist feminist theories, it will be shot down."

However, I didn't really come here to just post that. I'm commenting on what scares me most, which is "no comments" for these videos. I understand these videos will get a lot of troll comments or even some hate comments. But the best way to fight radical videos is to let sane people disprove the ideas in the video, which cannot be done is comments are automatically turned off. This is a poor idea and will only make the extremists' ideas more powerful.

Re: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[AHuxley]

Hi AC re "I'm commenting on what scares me most, which is "no comments" for these videos."
The slope will get more slippery when the account won't be able to upload and search results will not find the page.

Re: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[SuricouRaven]

It's not political. Flagging videos you disagree with is a tactic used by all factions, regardless of politics. There's been a lot of upset in the youtube atheist community lately over videos being taken down and at least one channel being closed due to a mass-flagging campaign organised by a Muslim organisation who are trying to rid the site of blasphemy.

Does it involve "arresting extremists"?

[tlambert]

Does it involve "arresting extremists"?

I understand you are not allowed access to computers in jail. Kind of makes it hard to create a throw-away account and post an extremist video.

By the way, where are all these extremists coming from; is there a factory somewhere? Maybe we can just shut that down...

Re:"YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[schleimkeim]

That would mean that they have to pay for quality control. I don't think they are THAT serious about that. As long as companies still buy ad space, they don't really have a reason to actually change youtube.

What about the army?

[zedaroca]

Will they censor videos supporting the military invasion of other countries? Will they censor videos supporting groups of proud people who make night raids and murder entire villages? Inciting people to join them?

Isn't the murder of thousands extremist?

I'm waiting to see what these "super flaggers" think.

Re:What about the army?

[Opportunist]

Think of it as a religion. You can murder and plunder all you like, but you gotta do it to "the others".

Re:"YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Anonymous Coward]

inb4 they start uploading the content themselves just so that they can tag it later and make some money

'Extremist' = 'white people'

[Anonymous Coward]

Any white person who dares to suggest that they would prefer to live in an all white country will be labelled as an 'extremist'... Despite the fact that MOST white people want to live in all white countries, and we are all being FORCED to live in 'multilcultural' countries, despite never having been asked...

It used to be China that had a heavy hand

[Visarga]

It used to be China that had a heavy hand in controlling the net. It has come to US as well. All cultures are converging in the middle. China is less communist. US is more authoritarian. Soon there won't be any serious difference.

Re:It used to be China that had a heavy hand

[Anonymous Coward]

It is still China that has a heavy hand in censoring the net domestically. Do you not see the difference between a private entity (Youtube/Google/Alphabet) voluntarily policing its content and state-mandated censorship?

Re:"YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's paranoia.

And it's also pretty much how Youtube policy works.

It sounds good until it's put into practice

[Anonymous Coward]

They talk about "Anti-Terrorist" but time and time again, what gets censored is conservative content. Gun channels are frequent targets prompting full30 to be founded. The #MGTOW guys have been demonetized. Stefan Molyneux was demonetized, and I'd say it's hard to fit him into a single category. The Anti-Defamation league posted two identical pages one anti-Israel and the other anti-Palestinian. Guess which one got taken down.

Re: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Opportunist]

You needn't side with that piece of human waste to oppose the other end of the insanity.

Is there any way to get out of that false dichotomy? Just because you don't really enjoy hanging doesn't mean that you prefer shooting.

Re: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Opportunist]

That's Aloha Snackbar, please. At least learn to properly greet food providers.

Re:"YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Opportunist]

Who decides what is "correctly" identified?

Re: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Opportunist]

Not gonna fly.

Mostly 'cause the very people who want to take "offensive" videos down are exactly the people who disable comments on their own.

Re:Not needed

[Opportunist]

It's better to apologize than to ask for permission.

Re:Censorship should be limited to criminal activi

[Opportunist]

I'm sorry, I don't give a shit about your censored bullshit.

People cut the cord when the networks went overboard with it and went to YouTube for free information.

What makes you think that this won't happen again with another video provider? I heard Youku is pretty lenient as long as you don't deal with Chinese politics...

Re: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Anonymous Coward]

And here we see an example of the sort of censure that's being talked about.

Examples, parodic as they are, are provided so you know exactly the type of hate and bigotry being addressed.
And the post is down-modded to the point of invisibility in an attempt to avoid discussion.

So, there are people out there who don't want to see this stuff, and will go out of their way to make sure it ALSO can't be seen and discussed in a rational manner.

It's actually quite sad that people are this childish about it.

unless promoting zionist/wahhabi agenda...

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know that Google is a zionist corporate platform, as well as being the R+D arm of the NSA. So extremist videos pushing the racist ideology of Israel and Saudi Arabia are more than just fine on Youtube. They are actually 'protected' speech.

The USA, on behalf of Israel, has just shot down a Syrian government plabe in Syria- because it was enaged against Israeli/Saudi terror forces. Videos glorifying that USA warcrimes are welcome on Youtube.

Youtube's new policies are Deep State censorship mechanisms, where the 'wrong' opinion is given the Orwellian memory hole treatment. OTOH, grooming people to assasinate Trump, as with the current play in NY, is fine and dandy (which is ironic given how zionist Trump is).

PS Israel has successfully spread the radical zionist flavour of extreme 'islam' we know as wahhabism into once secular nations like Libya, Iraq and Syria. As a result the rights of women and gays have collapsed in those nations. Yet lefties are so ultra thick, they still vote for their Saudi loving neo-liberal leaders like Clinton.

Re:"YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[wbtittle]

Their AI will find what is right and wrong. They will use the latest machine learning technology to learn from all of the input and output what should stay and what shouldn't.

Of course where they get the training set is going to be fascinating. We will have to create a training set on how to find the training set. Hey, let's use the Slashdot training set of Offtopic, flamebait, funny, too the point...

Crap, now we need to do a training set on the definition of each of those words.

My apologies to AI enthusiasts. There is a big gap in the analysis.

Maybe it's time for a distributed video host

[kainosnous]

They are a private industry, so I suppose that I support their right to do something as horrible as limit speech. However, I think it's time that we much more loudly call for a new medium to host and share video content.

Google won't be alone. Pressure will mount inside the industry and at some point from the government, etc. to try to limit certain types of content. As that happens, or hopefully in anticipation of that happening, I recommend a new paradigm of free, and open video sharing, perhaps powered by TOR networks and/or torrent. I would recommend it would be:

• Open - Any video subject can be shared.
• Distributed - No single point of failure, or few, and no one system handling the resource usage for all content.
• Free to the end user - Perhaps being distributed can spread resource costs sufficiently to make this practical.
• Homogenous - Simple, specific video formats to make acquiring the media simple and to prevent abuse.
• Browsable - Should be easy to find content, especially by search, but also good recommendations.

If something like this already this already exists, I would love to know about it. If not, maybe it's time to start gauging interest for one.

Re:Maybe it's time for a distributed video host

[butchersong]

There is bitchute but I don't know how many actually use it.

Re:Maybe it's time for a distributed video host

[david_thornley]

I wouldn't dream of discouraging you from trying this out, but I really don't think it will get enough viewership to be significant.

extremist- and terrorist-related = ...

[sproketboy]

Extremist- and terrorist-related = non-Marxist videos. Basically anything not mainstream or TYT is included.

Re: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Anonymous Coward]

At least your interracial cuckold porn will still be safe. Happy jerking while TyRee and DaQuan run a train on the chick who has you in the friend zone.

Aiding Conservatives is treason.Target that alone.

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems simple enough that creating videos that spread propaganda or encourage recruitment to the klan parties is simple treason yet it is allowed in almost every country. It would be very narrowly defined and unlikely scoop up other content yet whitey don't want it eliminated.

Just like there is a difference between saying "I don't like a religion and here's why" and spreading racist threats. There has to be a legal threshold. Racism must be stamped out even if it means killing whitey.

Re: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Anonymous Coward]

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

-- Mark Twain

No heresy no west

[butchersong]

It is the ability of Western civilization to countenance the heretic that allowed it to come to dominance and usher in the modern world. The Islamic world stagnated and began to revert because once Muslims became a majority in the territory they controlled they were able to prevent any research and discussion of any topic that challenged the orthodoxy. The same for Asia, everything was top down and autocratic. The west exists today because of our ability to tolerate "extremist" views. I realize some content needs to be removed but this should be restricted to glorification of the most extreme violations of the rights of others and nothing more.

Policies like this need to be very narrow and specific and have a human to human process of appeal.

Extremism

[Anonymous Coward]

What about those on the left that call for killing all republicans or all conservatives?

Yes, what about those. Can you cite some?

Re:"YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[BarbaraHudson]

They don't really have a choice. It's either improve it voluntarily, or by force of legislation.

Re:"YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[BarbaraHudson]

If you use it only for content that was allowed by their automated systems (which is what will happen, since everything is supposed to be automatically checked), so what? You're basically paying someone to help train your AI by finding the holes that the programmers couldn't find themselves.

watch we're you're going with that ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think binary marriages in GENERAL are a good thing for society (based on my personal experiences and witnessing the fucked-up lives of it's "victims"), but I don't hate married people who promote them. I just avoid talking about relationships with them, because they've swallowed the cool-aid and are no longer sufficiently objective.

Why does the "majority" interpret disagreement as criminal dissent?
Why are there such things as blasphemy laws?

Because humans are humans, prone to copy-catism and not rocking the boat in order to gain favors with the pack leaders. Thinking ... we're generally not much good at that ... yet.