Slashdot Mirror
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:
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."
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.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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.
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?
46137
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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?