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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

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

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

Re: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[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

[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

[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: "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!!!

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]

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

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 /.

[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 /.

[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 /.

[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]

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.

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.

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...

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.

[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.

[lgw]

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

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: 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: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[mrclevesque]

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

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:"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: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: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.

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/

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

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: 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: "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".

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: "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: 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^)

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"

[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.

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.

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.