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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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"

[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: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:"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: 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: "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.