Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Will Now Redirect Searches For Extremist Videos To Anti-Terrorist Playlists (tubefilter.com)
YouTube will return anti-terrorist playlists when users search for hateful content on the site using certain keywords pertaining to terrorism. Tubefilter.com reports: The new feature, dubbed The Redirect Method, is part of a four-prong strategy announced by Google last month to quash extremist ideologies across its platforms. The Redirect Method was developed by Jigsaw -- an Alphabet subsidiary whose mission is to counter extremism, censorship, and cyber attacks -- alongside another tech company called Moonshot CVE (which stands for "Countering Violent Extremism"). Jigsaw and Moonshot CVE developed the tech after studying, over several years, how terrorist factions like ISIS leverage technology to spread their messaging and recruit new followers. In coming weeks, YouTube says it intends to incorporate The Redirect Method into a wider set of search queries in languages beyond English, use machine learning to dynamically update search terms, work with partner NGOs to develop new anti-extremist content, and roll out the Method to Europe.
To actually let the populace have.
juhad jihad jewsaders aloe snackbar
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It's so great to see the thought police are out in full force.
I look forward to the next "Reefer Madness" of anti-Jihadi content!
Someone may as well enjoy it as they'll just link directly to videos from elsewhere...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm ambivalent.
On one hand, this "redirect" is fundamentally stifling freedom of speech.
On the other hand, religion is being used to trick ordinary people into being pawns in Banana Republic wars where the ultra-rich compete with each other for control of the worlds natural resources. It sure would be nice if ordinary people understood more clearly how they're allowing themselves to be exploited by the ultra-rich.
very good, haha!
Is a video against socialized health care hateful? Is a video exposing the dangers of communism hateful? Is a video against men using women's bathrooms hateful?
Thanks to the kind overlords at youtube, they'll just let us know so we don't have to think for ourselves.
Please list alternatives to youtube... The most useful posts are those with information on how and where to circumvent the censorship.
It's a free and open Internet, right? So, we should all be able to use any of our own streaming video sites that allow users to post content and share with others and put the onus for the content on the users! Right? Let's just do that. Which other platform should we use? Google doesn't have some special rights that we humans don't have, so this should be easy.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
The search doesn't work?
Why not remove videos you don't want on your site instead of screwing up the search results?
I guess it will match Googles own search that alters results depending on location and other things - which is garbage.
It sure would be nice if ordinary people understood more clearly how they're allowing themselves to be exploited by the ultra-rich.
And YouTube redirecting is going to accomplish anything relative to preventing people from deciding to join a terrorist faction ? If you believe the answer is yes, you're kidding yourself.
The problem is not the videos, the problem is many layers beneath any videos. For one example, consider that the US invading countries might act to convert people to what the US calls terrorism. You know, if your family is killed in a drone strike, that might just cause you to have significant anger toward the entity which is responsible. Ahh, but the governments which are engaged in wars of imperialism don't want you to believe that : they want you to believe THEIR cause is just and they are obviously ready to do anything to convince you, including censorship in the manner of a totalitarian state.
The idea that YouTube censorship is going to accomplish anything is something only a fool would believe. You cannot change a man's mind just because you try to silence that which appeals to him. If anything, the very attempt to prevent a person from accessing some video makes that video
significantly more attractive than it may ever have been otherwise. This is basic psychology, and anyone who has raised a teenager knows it is true.
Youtube already has content guidelines in place (nudity, violence, etc) -- great, enforce those. But circumventing a search because someone upstairs doesn't like the *message* in the video -- that's a whole other can of worms.
Google/Youtube didn't get to their position by playing censor, and it's questionable of them to start now that they've got a lock on so many eyeballs. If google wants to be a near-monopoly, they should act in as neutral manner as possible.
They don't remove anything. They're a datamining company, this is how they make money.
I definitely don't support terrorist/extremist videos that show murder, violence, terrorism, etc, but this says "hateful" content, that's such a loaded word. As a religious person I worry about the time Google and their employees decide that the very words or ideas from my religious text are "hateful". Not good not good at all.
Because, as everyone knows, there human species is physically unable to hide their messaging though code words to get around any possible censorship scheme.
Google and Youtube decide that they don't like it when you search for boobies. Too extreme. Now they are redirecting you to websites featuring kittens and puppies. And before you ask, no, not sweater puppies.
As a researcher in this specific area, this is... unhelpful. :(
On my work PC, I watched one video by a centipede on Youtube. Not about anything political in fact. But since then, I've been getting white nationalist videos suggested to me. I wondered if it acts similarly for jihadist content.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
organization is just plain creepy in their mission....
Creamer's married?
What a clever name.
Suppress extremists? Oh yes Page and Brin, Schmidt, Bezos and Zuckerwort and Lenin , Trotsky, Stalin ... all would have loved it ... seig heil komrade Alphabet. People who won't learn the-first-time ... eh pad're are duly educated the 2nd ? Seems not.
"an Alphabet subsidiary whose mission is to counter extremism, censorship, and cyber attacks"
Oddly, the subsidiary with a mission to counter censorship, is doing so with censorship.
I was shown how many bombs the USA has dropped https://www.youtube.com/result...
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Right in the article
I still wonder if some of these people can stop a bit and start reflecting on what they are doing.
Free speech is good
Evil speech can be harmful
Political speech against the party in power can be troublesome in some countries
The first search should be uncensored. The following ones should include opposing views. Yeah, I know this is hard to do
Will these consist of videos showing Britain, America and Israel mass murdering 'sub-Humans' in the middle east using weapon systems designed to fight WW3 against Russia?
When the American alliance started leveling large parts of Iraq with 'smart' bombs after Saddam foolishly took US State Dept advice and invaded Kuwait, the jewish owned news network in Britain, ITN, had announcers literally wetting themselves with joy as they showed the results of 'shock n awe' that would murder in excess of 100,000 Iraqis within a few weeks.
These murder videos, that mostly consisted of a missile eye POV, became the favourite news feed of the zionist mainstream media in the West- and of course the genocidal campaign culminated with 'the highway of death' when the retreating forces from Kuwait (mostly civilian) were exterminated by the British and Americans in the greatest single concentrated act of mass slaughter in Human History. But the owners of Google have publicly stated that glorying acts of mass murder by US, UK or Israel forces is most welcome on Youtube.
The current extremist sunni terror forces- funded and armed by saudi Arabia- but only under direct instruction from Washington and London- directly resulted from Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq- and that invasion was a direct result of the impelmentation of the false-flag demanded in the infamous PNAC document- 9/11.
The Iraq invasion and occupation converted leading members of Saddams armed forces into the command and control hierarchy of ISIS and co - which has a cult religious sunni wahhabi nature at the 'bottom', but is a ruthless MI6/CIA operation at the top- Saddam's med were not religious nutters. Blair's Iraq terror gangs were used to invade and destroy PNAC target nations that America felt unable to just bomb.
Blair's 'arab spring' allowed terror movements to be portrayed as 'popular resistance' to the types of cretin who voted for Clinton. The same cretins failed to notice that Britain and the UK helped despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE etc to exterminate genuine democratic movements in their lands. According to the zionist press that speaks on behalf of Clinton, modern secular muslim nations like Libya and Syria needed to be DESTROYED in the name of 'democracy', but wahhabi Saudi Arabia- best friend of Israel- needs ntohing but love and support from the West. And you Clinton cretins actually claim to operate with one iota of morality?
When Britain ran slave economies, leaders of slave revolts were 'terrorists'. In many ex-empire countries, murdered popular leaders who were universally called 'terrorists' in the press of the UK and USA at the time now have statues to their honour, and the school kids of those nations are (rightly) taught about their heroism.
But the wahhabi forces currently tearing up Libya, Syria, Yemen, Nigeria etc at the behest of Israel and Saudi Arabia are no-ones 'freedom fighters' in reality, no matter how hard neo-liberal 'funny men' on TV shows aimed at Clinton sheeple may claim. The wahhabi hoardes bringing Saudi doctrine to an ever expanding number of muslim regions (like indonesia and malaysia) are a tool of the Deep State of the West. Where wahhabi terror cannot be directly used, Saudi money simply buys local support for wahhabi political growth- as seen in the UK (where all major mosques are Saudi built and Saudi financed). Saudi trained 'judges' administer wahhabi 'justice' in more than a dozen muslim nations now- including indonesia.
The owners of Youtube are hardly anti-terror. Google's top people regularly visit Israel to join in with celebrations of zionist hyper-violence against those they label as 'sub-Human'. But youtube will concentrate on promoting West and zionist terror from now on, allowing more 'trendy' outlets to appeal to the idiot suckers drawn to the wahhabi terror project of Washington and London.
But it gets even worse. The 'ban' at Youtube is actually ultimately aimed at anti-establishment videos, like those whowing the success East Ukraine Humans
"Alphabet subsidiary whose mission is to counter extremism, censorship, and cyber attacks"
So they plan on countering censorship by censoring?
Of course terrorists will be used as an excuse to suppress political speech that they don't like. It wasn't enough to pull the carpet out from under political commentators in the form of ad revenue, to delete popular comments on poignant issues, to manipulate the trending list, and unsubscribing people's choices; they needed to go further to provide some helpful reeducation.
Youtube has been an incredible platform for free speech, an amazing marketplace of ideas and information, where anyone with a determination to cut through the bullshit can be heard by millions and gain a following. But that's just too good to last, and it is definitely too dangerous to leave ignored.
Can a society which espouses free speech as a fundamental principle actually survive?
Or are the jihadists correct that any society which wishes to survive must somehow control its citizens baser natural tendencies?
Protecting stuff you believe in is easy. Protecting stuff you disagree with is the true litmus test of how strong your principles are. The moment you stop protecting speech you disagree with, you've tacitly admitted that the principle of freedom of expression is a failure. You become a supporter only of points of views you agree with. The same as the jihadists you are purportedly fighting against - they only allow points of view they agree with. Evelyn Hall understood this when she wrote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
It's easy to say "Evil speech is harmful" but not so easy to put any meaning to that glib statement. Noam Chomsky reminds us that free speech means being very tolerant for views one does not agree with which gives rise to the idea that the fix for whatever one might deem 'bad speech' is more speech: "Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." Niemoller ("First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a Socialist. ... Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.") reminds us to ask how long until one's ideas are deemed "evil", "terroristic", or whatever other language triggers censorship on a particular hosting service.
In the meantime, it's easy to upload to multiple places (such as archive.org) and host one's videos on one's own server thus avoiding YouTube's censorship altogether. I know this is a difficult tack to take on /.; take one look at any story having to do with proprietary software and see how quickly the posts advocating software freedom for its own sake are downvoted (without comment, of course, due to the structure of /.'s moderation system) while business-friendly (pro-DRM, pro-tinkering at the edges of giving into proprietary control) posts are left alone or upvoted. A far cry from what /. used to be when it began. I imagine different discussion sites have differing ad-hoc effective defintions for what's objectionable. All the more reason to host one's own blog.
Digital Citizen
The SJW will be busy.
No blasphemy. No cartoons that get people to question their faith or show what a faith is really about.
No animations with music that allow people to understand the teachings of a cult or faith.
No questions about Communist party history. No video clips about Communist party leaders.
No video clips about local news reports on the results of illegal immigration.
No news on the policy of allowing in a lot of illegal immigrants into a nation.
No video clips that are negative about a movie script or the skills of any actors. No video clips on why an actor got a role.
No video clips on agricultural policy and practices.
No video clips on the results of health care funding.
No video clips that show political leaders out of context. All political content must be from approved party released content.
No showing a political leaders heath problems. No recordings of political groups or individuals in a political party engaged in criminal acts.
No recordings that show journalists expressing their support for a political party.
No memes or animation images placed over news, movie, political or religious content.
Nations like the USA with freedom of speech and freedom after speech will see an influx of content back to US servers.
People will still want to view history, news, animations, reviews without a SJW banning the accounts and all content.
The more content the SJW ban, the more people will support brands that protect free speech.
Sites in the USA that support free speech will grow as content, comment and fun finds new US brands.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Have you stopped raping your neighbor's goats yet?
Now apply the Redirect Method to religious content...
Requiem for the American Dream
It won't be waving a flag and carrying a bible, it will be from companies and the government proclaiming their desire to protect all of us from "harmful" ideas.
Earth is a single point of failure.
Hate speech is whatever the folks in charge don't like. Currently, they're on the left so not making cakes is hateful and you'll be sent to the gulag. If the right gains power over the courts, making cakes will be hateful and you will be sent to a concentration camp.
Jul. 14, Juche 106 (2017) Friday
Reckless Remarks of Peace Wrecker
Shortly ago, the commander of the U.S. Strategic Force said that peace was their job and the U.S. possessed nukes to prevent a world war.
This is nothing but deceptive farce to cover up the U.S. nuclear threats and blackmails to other countries and nuclear buildup with the veil of peace.
It is none other than the U.S. which has disturbed peace since its foundation on the sea of skeletons of Amerindians. The Korean War, the Vietnamese War, military invasions of Granada and Panama, the Gulf War, the Balkan War and all others were committed by the U.S. to wreck peace.
It is also due to the U.S. that vicious cycle of civil wars, terrorism and retaliations now continues in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.
The job of the U.S. is not peace but war.
The U.S. was the only country which imposed a nuclear disaster upon humankind in the world. When the Japanese imperialists were at the door of defeat, the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The purpose was not to force Japan to surrender but to curb the growing socialist camp and realize the ambition for world domination.
The U.S. scenario for the Korean War in the 1950s contained military invasion of the Far East of the Soviet Union and China. Humankind would have been embroiled in a new world war if the army and people of the DPRK had not given a defeat and disgrace to the U.S. imperialists in the Korean War called confrontation between rifle and A-bomb.
The U.S. is, indeed, the shameless aggressor state, war state and the culprit disturbing peace as it leaves no means untried to achieve its sinister purpose.
Jo Thaek Bom
This is not the best way to win a battle of ideas. Neil Gaiman says quite nicely here: http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2015/05/neil-gaiman-credo Now I'm going to start searching youtube trying to get censored. Oh, yeah, and now I won't be able to trust any of google searches either.
smelly hindu-chimps all over America are colonizing it right under your libturd nose
Hate speech is whatever the folks in charge don't like. Currently, they're on the left
Uhhhhh....
Eat the rich.
it's their website. To be honest though you'd be hard pressed to find a religious text that didn't have something hateful in it. Most of those texts are thousands of years old and the world was a rough place for a long time (still is in most places). Anyway I don't expect Google to focus on a specific religious text, just the parts that either insight violence or scare off advertisers (let's not forget Youtube's biz model).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why not just let people watch this crap and if they're found to be watching a lot of it flag it up for the authorities to investigate ?
Censorship is always wrong. Free speech trumps everything else.
But if you're going around continually saying "I want to kill people", "I want to make a bomb" etc. then it's quite right that you're investigated.
...Promise Keepers I wonder where one would end up.
Goats are better looking than chinks.
You searched for Tiananmen square massacre.
Did you mean "nothing at all happened"?
Those are the real hateful and extremist videos that are having a bigger negative impact. Spreading their lies and misinformation to push their masters agenda...
At some point, the conservative agenda will be exposed as the fraud it is.
Even with the best intentions.
When censors 'attack' extremeism, does that mean Milos Yanniopoulis is de-referenced?
or does it only apply to brown-skinned men?
Does it apply to anti-choice zealots demanding armed action? or does it apply only to Atheists denigrating them verbally?
My bet?
Christian crazies and Birthers will not be shut down, but breast cancer survivor class-action legal recruitment videos will.
I recommend you read "Inside the Third Reich" by Albert Speer
Nice examination of how the conservative agenda is NEVER exposed.
The assumption is that the video material is searched for, rather than accessed by known URLs that get passed around either person to person or by other channels.
Researchers however would not know those URLs without searching, so they would now lose access to the source material, while the video target audience is unaffected, so they can't do their work as easily as before.
What this achieves in practice then is to create a safe haven for posting the material and viewing it via the URL you have been handed, which of course is the exact opposite of what was the goal.
Game theory - study it.
That's not true, there are plenty of made up things in how it is portrayed. For example, the notion that anyone is beinh radicalized over the internet. Everyone uses Syed Farook's wife as an example even though claims of her radicalization online were a hoax. The idea that internet companies could do more than fuckall about any of this aside from cover their own asses is perhaps the biggest forgery about it.
"Brian McBadAss here on YouTube to show you, the American patriot, how to snap a sand n's neck with a single finger. Stay tuned for more extreme survivalist tips and tricks."