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.
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
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.
Free speech is a protected right, that doesn't mean that a company has to promote or distribute others ideologies.
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.
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.
Why don't they just remove the videos then instead of messing up the search results.
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.
While you are free to say that, this has nothing to do with free speach rights.
When they are redirecting, they are promoting and/or distributing others ideologies.
I get that they are a company and can do as they want with their platform but I am sure how you can see their intervention like this being used for not so warm and fuzzy things. Let's say something like they want some bill to get passed so they direct searches to only videos promoting the bill.
Not a fan of when companies get in the 'arbiters of free speech' business. It's either within your TOS or it isn't. You're either responsible for all content or none.
'Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful.' -Charles Bradlaugh
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.
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. :(
"Why don't they just remove the videos then instead of messing up the search results."
Exactly, remove the videos or refuse the search, what they're doing is like shooting themselves in the foot, it promotes the idea that they manipulate search results.
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
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
"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"
Free speech does not always refer to the protection from government censorship. Free speech in regards to youtube means that google will not censor you. Google does not support free speech on its platform.
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.
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.
Not a fan of when companies get in the 'arbiters of free speech' business. It's either within your TOS or it isn't. You're either responsible for all content or none.
Legally they can be responsible only for removing content when it is flagged up to them, but in practice there is commercial pressure to actively look for it from advertisers.
'Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful.' -Charles Bradlaugh
Agreed, but expecting commercial services like YouTube to be an absolute free speech venue is not realistic.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Hate speech is whatever the folks in charge don't like. Currently, they're on the left
Uhhhhh....
Eat the rich.
And this is why I have NEVER signed up for a Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, My Space, Google, Twitter, or similar account. F' them. I'll stick more independent mediums.
The good thing about youtube, no account needed.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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/
Erm, they DO manipulate search results, they have been doing it for years. I've pretty much given up on using google when searching for certain things, because I know that google will remove most of them from the search results.
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
...Promise Keepers I wonder where one would end up.
Even with the best intentions.
> The videos are delivered as ads.
Perfect then - people looking for uncensored content can use ad blockers. Win-win!
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 problem is that Youtube does not promote itself as a TV station, it promotes itself as a community. When Youtube, or Google as a whole, start manipulating search results so that they always celebrate a certain ideology and demonize another it is at the very least false advertising, and threatens our democracy.
Google is for all intents and purposes a common carrier, it serves as our community hall, mail system, our news papers, and so much more. Why should Google not be allowed to push polities into its search results, because the mailman should not be censuring and modifying my letters.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
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.
Interesting - Thanks
Free speech refers to government censorship. YouTube aren't the government. You'd think someone with a functioning brain could make that distinction.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhm let me have a wild guess. This will expose them to videos that contradict their views. Does that not seem obvious? Really?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
So there was a time when you liked Google, was there? I doubt that very much.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Your speech is still free. Start your own YouTube and stop fucking whining.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Oh, the AC assures us. Consider me assured.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Google is for all intents and purposes a common carrier, it serves as our community hall, mail system, our news papers, and so much more. Why should Google not be allowed to push polities into its search results, because the mailman should not be censuring and modifying my letters.
Nope. Vimeo. Dailymotion. ZippCast. Twitch. YouTube is a private platform and they can decide whatever the fuck they like regarding what happens on it. Don't like it? Leave.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
So you want alternatives to youtube, and you figure the best way to find that out is to ask on Slashdot? Checking back later? Posting as AC?
Amazing job man.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.