1st Amendment Thread

[de officiis]

YouTube Has a New Naughty Corner for Controversial Religious and Supremacist Videos

YouTube clarified how it plans to handle videos that don’t violate any of its policies but still contain offensive religious and supremacist content: hide them and make sure they can’t make any money.

The news comes as a status report on the promises made by Google general counsel Kent Walker in a June Financial Times op-ed, which announced YouTube was taking several steps to inhibit extremist videos. These steps included investing in machine-learning technology to help identify videos associated with terrorism, increasing the number of “Trusted Flaggers” to identify content that can be used to radicalize terrorists, and redirecting potential extremist recruits to watch counterterrorism videos instead. Walker also wrote that YouTube would take a “tougher stance” on controversial videos that don’t actually violate any YouTube policies.

In a blog post today, YouTube provided a better sense of what that stance entails. Now, when YouTube decides that a flagged video doesn’t break policy but still contains “controversial religious or supremacist content,” the video will be put in a “limited state.” Here, the video will exist in a sort of limbo where it won’t be recommended or monetized. It also won’t include suggested videos or allow comments or likes.

...

Of course, when YouTube removes a video, the video can easily be re-uploaded or a mirrored version can spread to different channels. Often times, a video removal only brings more attention to the video and encourages people to re-upload it so it can reach a wider audience. So this decision by YouTube seems like a calculated effort to prevent the spread of offensive content without fully censoring it.

Right-wing alternative media figures and conspiracy theorists have been complaining for weeks that YouTube is already manipulating the algorithms to limit their reach and revenue. . . .

YouTube also announced today that it has added to the list of NGOs it is working with to help determine what content should be hidden. These organizations include the No Hate Speech Movement, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and the Anti-Defamation League . . . .

“These organizations bring expert knowledge of complex issues like hate speech, radicalization, and terrorism that will help us better identify content that is being used to radicalize and recruit extremists,” YouTube stated today. ...

...

The update also touted the success of the machine-learning-driven removal of content, claiming that over the last month, YouTube algorithms have found 75 percent of policy-violating extremist content before a human was able to flag the videos.

Are the new Draconian penalties against offensive speech enacted by countries in the EU to blame for YT's new policies? What happens when private corporations become so powerful that they replace governments in doing the job of content-based censorship?

[TheReal_ND]

As long as corporations don't have the power to lock someone up whatever dude. """Net Neutrality""" my ass.

Anyway none of this "slow pipeline" bs they claim to argue against has effected TRS, the #1 anti semite Nazi podcast hoster in the world.

[SuburbanFarmer]

As long as corporations don't have the power to lock someone up whatever dude. """Net Neutrality""" my ass.

Anyway none of this "slow pipeline" bs they claim to argue against has effected TRS, the #1 anti semite Nazi podcast hoster in the world.

Blackwater can lock you in Gitmo.

Any event security can detain you in a cell.

And most prisons are run by private companies now.

[TheReal_ND]

All at the behest of government or judiciary. Security can't legally detain you longer than it takes police to arrive.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Are the new Draconian penalties against offensive speech enacted by countries in the EU to blame for YT's new policies? What happens when private corporations become so powerful that they replace governments in doing the job of content-based censorship?

I was sort of under the impression that governments, or at least our government, shouldn't be doing content-based censorship in the first place.

As for powerful private corporations... well, we could beef our anti-trust back up if we don't like so much consolidated power I suppose, but honestly, this seems like the free market solution to bullshit. If the vast majority of consumers of you tube videos decide they don't mind not having easy access to supremacist videos, or, at least, don't mind enough to find free video hosting alternatives or pressuring their representatives to bust up information monopolies, there you have it.

Hey, looks like I've been red-pilled after all.

[Fife]

You're gonna be just fine HM. :goteam:

You are correct, of course -- the real world has a way of dealing with assholes: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/twtr/stock-chart

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

You're gonna be just fine HM. :goteam:

You are correct, of course -- the real world has a way of dealing with assholes: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/twtr/stock-chart

Different assholes, Fife: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/googl/stock-chart

[Ex-California]

Are the new Draconian penalties against offensive speech enacted by countries in the EU to blame for YT's new policies? What happens when private corporations become so powerful that they replace governments in doing the job of content-based censorship?

I was sort of under the impression that governments, or at least our government, shouldn't be doing content-based censorship in the first place.

As for powerful private corporations... well, we could beef our anti-trust back up if we don't like so much consolidated power I suppose, but honestly, this seems like the free market solution to bullshit. If the vast majority of consumers of you tube videos decide they don't mind not having easy access to supremacist videos, or, at least, don't mind enough to find free video hosting alternatives or pressuring their representatives to bust up information monopolies, there you have it.

Hey, looks like I've been red-pilled after all.

The content creators hate the Youtube policy because it actively demonetizes the most controversial videos; but videos that aren't even controversial yet contain the right controversial buzzwords will get demonetized as well. This happens to Rubin a lot from what I can gather by listening to his shows.

[Fife]

You're gonna be just fine HM. :goteam:

You are correct, of course -- the real world has a way of dealing with assholes: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/twtr/stock-chart

Different assholes, Fife: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/googl/stock-chart

Different, indeed. Their time will come; TWTR is just low-hanging fruit today.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The content creators hate the Youtube policy because it actively demonetizes the most controversial videos; but videos that aren't even controversial yet contain the right controversial buzzwords will get demonetized as well. This happens to Rubin a lot from what I can gather by listening to his shows.

Same logic applies to them. You are free to move on to other hosting platforms, and then promote those platforms. You are free to pressure your representatives to try to break up monopolies. You are not free to tell You Tube what is best for You Tube. You are somewhere between an employee and a squatter when you are a content creator for the big red Tube.

Maybe they could pressure their representatives to beef up labor laws protecting free lancers... I don't know, I've got about 3 possible solutions here that don't involve moaning that You Tube is unfair to you because you are just too darn edgy. Get on your bikes content creators, and instead of bitching, be the change you want to see in the world, or whatever.