Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Is Full of Easy-To-Find Neo-Nazi Propaganda (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes an exclusive report from Motherboard: Through a software-aided investigation, Motherboard has found that while YouTube has managed to clamp down on Islamic extremists uploading propaganda, the video giant is still awash with videos supporting violent and established neo-Nazi organizations, even when, in some cases, users have reported the offending videos. Clips of neo-Nazi propaganda operations, hate-filled speeches, and extremists pushing for direct action have remained on the site for weeks, months, or years at a time. Arguably, many if not all of these videos may fall under YouTube's own policy on hate speech, which "refers to content that promotes violence against or has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes," including race or ethnic origin, religion, and sexual orientation, according to the policy.
Motherboard built a tool to monitor YouTube and make a record of when the platform removed certain videos, and limited the clips to propaganda for established neo-Nazi and far-right terrorist organizations like Atomwaffen, rather than people in the so-called "alt-right." Most of the videos were discovered through simple YouTube searches of relevant organizations' names, or sometimes through the "recommended videos" sidebar after Motherboard had built up a browsing history of neo-Nazi material. For the sake of comparison, over a week-long period Motherboard also tracked pro-ISIS videos uploaded by the group's supporters and then distributed through a network of Telegram channels. Typically, YouTube removed these Islamic extremism videos in a matter of hours, including those that did not contain images of violence, but were instead speeches or other not directly violent content. But YouTube is playing catch up with neo-Nazi material. YouTube removed only two videos that Motherboard was monitoring: two identical clips of a speech from UK terrorist organization National Action.
Motherboard built a tool to monitor YouTube and make a record of when the platform removed certain videos, and limited the clips to propaganda for established neo-Nazi and far-right terrorist organizations like Atomwaffen, rather than people in the so-called "alt-right." Most of the videos were discovered through simple YouTube searches of relevant organizations' names, or sometimes through the "recommended videos" sidebar after Motherboard had built up a browsing history of neo-Nazi material. For the sake of comparison, over a week-long period Motherboard also tracked pro-ISIS videos uploaded by the group's supporters and then distributed through a network of Telegram channels. Typically, YouTube removed these Islamic extremism videos in a matter of hours, including those that did not contain images of violence, but were instead speeches or other not directly violent content. But YouTube is playing catch up with neo-Nazi material. YouTube removed only two videos that Motherboard was monitoring: two identical clips of a speech from UK terrorist organization National Action.
Really? I have yet to find any good porn on YouTube.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Motherboard not familiar with the concept of a "honeypot"? The best thing to do is leave these pages up, then pass the IP address of anybody watching them to the NSA, because watching them is adequate justification for a wiretap warrant.
So having an unpopular opinion makes you a 'fair target' for government scrutiny?
Do you feel the same way about Antifa supporters?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I've done the same. It's pretty telling given all the AC comments directed at you too.
We're in a pretty sorry state of affairs when commies advocating political violence is fine, but weapon safety videos get removed.
How about not letting others invade our countries in the first place?
I'm from Sweden which have had the most extreme immigration politics and where this together with Germany may be the hardest subject to discuss whatsoever but even here the people have always been more for less immigrants rather than more and with our current immigration politics the EU "worries" that we'll make it permanent.
What is this EU / that person / organ and why it worries about it?
Sweden has been the most pro-immigration in the EU and taken the largest share per capita and yet somehow that's not enough?
Not even the Swedish or German people wanted this let alone others in the saner parts of EU and still for whatever reason it's something we should have? Why? Decided by whom? Once again: Why? Where's the democratic foundation for that decision?
Call it hatred all you want but it's fairly obvious Europeans from non-Muslim countries on average doesn't want Muslims and Islam to come and affect society, take control, replace our people. That may have been true for Eastern Europeans, former Yugoslavs and Africans too.
Regardless of whatever that's because of values, ethnicity, religion, educational level or whatever what's the problem?
Even if you are (classical) liberal you can respect ownership and as such our right to our countries or plots of land. If you consider every plot of land privately owned then that could of course be sold to whomever by the rightful owner but this is about robbing the natives of the land to pay for the invasion of their countries, loss of their sovereignty, people, identity and influence of their own land which isn't the same. And even if you are a collectivist and base that of state & democracy shouldn't the people of the state in question be in control of what they want to do?
Call it hatred, racism and neo-nazism all you want but it's not necessarily true and it doesn't make it wrong and the opposite right regardless.
The threats of things like civil-war, rising belief in nationalism, expression of hatred, possibly calls for discrimination and so on is just possible end results to try to control and solve the situation once our lands have already been filled with immigrants we didn't wanted here.
But why were they let in in the first place? Why are we flooded? That's the real problem. They shouldn't be here as far as the original population wants. As for whatever you controller the borders originally or forced/encouraged them to go home and similarly forced them to assimilate rather than staying with their original identity and behavior is kinda irrelevant for reaching what the original people actually wanted.
Of course the crazy traitors who encourage this view it as a problem as long as our countries have a majority of natives who can feel this way and as such it need to be flooded even more until we lose democratic control over our lands. But how isn't fighting both the traitors and the immigrants you didn't wanted actually somewhat justified in that scenario?
Firebombing Tokyo was much worse. Without the nuclear bombs dropped a few months later, there may have been many more such firebombings to bring the Japanese to the table to surrender. Of course, there was that little 40 day period called the Rape of Nanking where the Japanese killed over 250,000 people. Talking to my wife's grandmother - who lived through it as an 18 year old girl who was thankfully taken in by a Jewish family (otherwise she was certain to be raped and killed like her best friend), it was horrific. But never mind, USA bad because nuclear weapons.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!