SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Nami LaChance writes at The Intercept that a google-incubated program that targets potential ISIS members with deradicalizing content will soon be used to target violent right-wing extremists in North America. Using research and targeted advertising, the initiative by London-based startup Moonshot CVE and Google's Jigsaw technology incubator targets potentially violent Jihadis and directs them to a YouTube channel with videos that refute ISIS propaganda. In the pilot program countering ISIS, the so-called Redirect Method collected the metadata of 320,000 individuals over the course of eight weeks, using 1,700 keywords, and served them advertisements that led them to the videos.
"I think this is an extremely promising method," says Richard Stengel, U.S. Undersecretary of State for public diplomacy and public affairs. In the ISIS pilot program, the YouTube channel pulls preexisting videos that, according to Yasmin Green, the head of research and development for Jigsaw, "refute ISIS's messaging." One video is from a woman who secretly filmed her life in ISIS-controlled Raqqa. Another shows young people in Mosul, their faces obscured by keffiyehs for their protection, talking about life under the Islamic State. "The branding philosophy for the entire pilot project was not to appear judgmental or be moralistic, but really to pique interest of individuals who have questions, questions that are being raised and answered by the Islamic State."
Ross Frenett, co-founder of Moonshot, says his company and Jigsaw are now working with funding from private groups to target other violent extremists, including the hard right in America. "Our efforts during phase two, when we're going to focus on the violent far right in America, will be very much focused on the small element of those that are violent. The interesting thing about how they behave is they're a little bit more brazen online these days than ISIS fan boys," says Frenett.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday September 09 2016, @03:30PM
What you're saying is that having our own, personal search bubbles is a problem. You're right, of course, and I imagine nearly everyone on Soylent would agree with that.
However.
What you are suggesting, and what Google is doing, is the wrong solution. It shouldn't be: "we don't like what this group thinks, so let's sneak some specific links into their results". Note, for example, that they aren't worries about left-wing extremists, even though left-wing extremism has historically been at least as big a problem as right-wing extremism. And, anyway, who gets to define which groups they target?
A far, far better solution would be to make an effort to eliminate these personal, self-reinforcing search bubbles. Or at least make it obvious to me that I am living in a bubble. For example, what if every Google search returned the same links as today, along with a prominent icon warning "Results biased to your bubble; click here for all results"? That way, people would be reminded that there are other viewpoints.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by jmorris on Friday September 09 2016, @04:35PM
even though left-wing extremism has historically been at least as big a problem as right-wing extremism
Eh? Even if you are an idiot who puts Hitler on the Right, the Socialists, Communists and other misfits everyone agrees are Left (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Che, Robespierre, etc.) killed hundreds of millions. The body count isn't even close.
Meanwhile, find me a current 'violent right wing extremist' here in the U.S. If you Google hard enough you can turn up a couple. Nutjobs are only slightly tilted left, it being the creed for the left side of the Bell Curve.... Now look for lefties with violent tendencies. Start with President Obama's friends, mentors, teachers, allies. q.e.d.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday September 09 2016, @06:20PM
Meanwhile, find me a current 'violent right wing extremist' here in the U.S. If you Google hard enough you can turn up a couple. Nutjobs are only slightly tilted left, it being the creed for the left side of the Bell Curve.... Now look for lefties with violent tendencies. Start with President Obama's friends, mentors, teachers, allies. q.e.d.
You are, as always, quite correct Majesty [newsweek.com].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @09:32PM
Do you not sense something amiss when "patriot groups" whose 'goal is to "defend our Constitution against all enemy threats"' is now openly declared as posing "the greatest terrorist threat to the country [newsweek.com]"?
Gee, such language by agents of the US fedgov almost makes it seem like the "patriot groups" are on to something.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @10:39PM
> Do you not sense something amiss when "patriot groups" whose 'goal is to "defend our Constitution against all enemy threats"'
> is now openly declared as posing "the greatest terrorist threat to the country"?
Because people never cloak their actual motives in grand language. Which is why the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a shining star of democracy and the PATRIOT Act is the legal incarnation of the American ideals.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday September 10 2016, @12:46AM
Do you not sense something amiss when "patriot groups" whose 'goal is to "defend our Constitution against all enemy threats"' is now openly declared as posing "the greatest terrorist threat to the country"?
Gee, such language by agents of the US fedgov almost makes it seem like the "patriot groups" are on to something.
Given that deaths from violent acts by domestic right-wing extremists exceed those by Muslim extremists (who are quite right-wing too, so they're really fellow travelers, even if their ideologies differ a bit) it seems that while there's a bit of hyperbole, there are a lot more domestic right-wing extremists in the US than there are Muslim extremists, bit that's generally what you get from journalists [xkcd.com].
Sigh.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @01:30AM
When you use Newspeak words whose definitions have lost all meaning, no meaningful discussion can be reached. Democrat, republican, libertarian, right-wing, left-wing, center, patriot, liberal, conservative, hate - these words have been so tortured in political speech that they are now functionally useless.
Authoritarians are my enemy. Slavers are my enemy. The only proper way to conduct business of any sort is with the voluntary participation of all parties, even if that makes things really, really hard in regards to the tragedy of the commons and free-rider problems.
If people murder, they're murderers. If a murderer murders to promote an idea that involves using force on other people, they're authoritarian murderers. The root issue of the problems you see is almost certainly not "those other people", but instead a literally criminal US government operating far outside the bounds of its legal authority. You, me, and the rest of us plebians are all trapped at the end of government guns and starting to feel the panic rising to fever-pitch. Don't get mad at me - I'm not sticking a gun up your nose.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @02:02AM
> The only proper way to conduct business of any sort is with the voluntary participation of all parties
That's a fiction. You whine about "newspeak" and then you use the word "voluntary" to include coercion through the exploitation of circumstance. Just because its not an elected government coercing someone doesn't mean its voluntary. When you are starving and the only person with any available food "offers" it to you in exchange for permanent servitude that's not voluntary participation.
Life is complicated. You favor simplifying it into authoritarianism while claiming to support freedom. At best you are kinda dumb, at worst you are a willing hypocrite.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @02:17AM
I disagree completely. It is only because of institutionalized use of violence through government that most of the "exploitation of circumstances" occur. It's to the point where people are not allowed to do things for themselves anymore under threat of government execution. Voluntary charity can help with the edge cases.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday September 10 2016, @02:41AM
When you use Newspeak words whose definitions have lost all meaning, no meaningful discussion can be reached. Democrat, republican, libertarian, right-wing, left-wing, center, patriot, liberal, conservative, hate - these words have been so tortured in political speech that they are now functionally useless.
Authoritarians are my enemy. Slavers are my enemy. The only proper way to conduct business of any sort is with the voluntary participation of all parties, even if that makes things really, really hard in regards to the tragedy of the commons and free-rider problems.
If people murder, they're murderers. If a murderer murders to promote an idea that involves using force on other people, they're authoritarian murderers. The root issue of the problems you see is almost certainly not "those other people", but instead a literally criminal US government operating far outside the bounds of its legal authority. You, me, and the rest of us plebians are all trapped at the end of government guns and starting to feel the panic rising to fever-pitch. Don't get mad at me - I'm not sticking a gun up your nose.
I wanted to respond to you, as you were kind enough to express yourself in response to my post.
However, I keep re-reading your words and they seem to have little to do with anything (except the term "right-wing", which can be removed from my post without changing the meaning I wished to convey) in my post.
Beyond that, your post seems to be a disorganized rant about the government, with vague assertions about authoritarians, slavers and murderers.
No one (and certainly not me) said anything about the government being sweetness and light, or even operating within the bounds of the law/constitution [soylentnews.org] (oops, I just outed myself posting as AC. Regardless, it's still true and I will own my words).
The folks discussed in the Newsweek article are, in fact, murderous thugs who are attempting (and on a number of occasions, succeeding) to use deadly force to advance their beliefs/agenda. I think that qualifies for your [soylentnews.org] definition of "authoritarian murderers."
So, how does your rant have anything to do with the subject at hand? I'm sure it's perfectly clear in your mind, so please, do elucidate. Thanks!
If your words don't actually have anything to do with the post to which you replied, and it was happenstance that caused you to post there, that's fine too...I'm just not seeing the connection.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @03:08AM
Consider the post [soylentnews.org] my expression of frustration with a nation full of people fighting tooth-and-nail over leaf issues, ignoring the root issue(s), and using words devoid of meaning as both insults and rallying-cries depending on whose side the reader agrees with. My post had little to do with the actual content of your message, other than relating to my thinking of all the work required to define terms before I could even begin to engage with you on your post's content.
Regarding root/leaf issues: the magical resolution/removal of a leaf issue would be almost imperceptible to most USians. Government-sactioned homosexual marriage is one such leaf issue. A root issue's magical removal would render most leaf issues moot, in that people would be left alone to conduct themselves with others as they all saw fit as long as all participants continually consented. A thinking person's example is Civil Asset Forfeiture as a leaf issue, and the unConstitutional War on Some Drugs as more akin to a root issue. (The WoSD, however, is itself a leaf issue.) Murder, slavery, and authoritarianism (perhaps "collectivism" is a better choice) are all words accurately describing actions taken and the mindset held for those that cheer the ongoing WoSD leaf issue.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday September 10 2016, @03:18AM
Thanks for clarifying. It's much appreciated, as my confusion (at least about this) is considerably lessened.
The AC post [soylentnews.org] (which I came clean as being me) I referenced earlier addresses some of the issues you mention.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tfried on Friday September 09 2016, @06:29PM
What you are suggesting, and what Google is doing, is the wrong solution. It shouldn't be: "we don't like what this group thinks, so let's sneak some specific links into their results".
Have I really been this unclear? Sneaking in links is precisely what I am trying to avoid in my proposal: Suppose you're googling for "holocaust lie". I suggest you should get all your denial hits completely unfiltered, but next to that you'd get a separate column - clearly labelled - presenting the other side.
To some degree this would still present the search result in a relatively neutral way. Also, in many cases it may actually correspond well to what you were actually trying to search. Perhaps you were in fact looking specifically for the counter-argument side, but did not phrase your search well enough. This could potentially be useful for a much wider range of topics, too. Consider undergoing some controversial surgery, for instance? How about you get the best approving, and the best disapproving hits side-by-side? Want to read up on both sides of the climate debate? Based on user clicks, cross-linking patterns, and some keywords, a search algorithm might actually be able to give you a nice two-column view for that, too.
(I am also well aware of quite a number of weaknesses in that proposal, feel free to spell them out. But hey, I thought it might spark further ideas.)