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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

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

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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: "YouTube's Trusted Flagger program"

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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?

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 /.

[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?

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: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.

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: 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"

[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?

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: SJW extremists, beware!

[BlueStrat]

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

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

Strat

Re: SJW extremists, beware!

[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.

extremist- and terrorist-related = ...

[sproketboy]

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