Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday June 10 2019, @05:53PM   Printer-friendly

On June 5th, YouTube announced in a post on its official blog that it is going to be:

Removing more hateful and supremacist content from YouTube

by specifically prohibiting videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.

Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place.

Reducing borderline content and raising up authoritative voices

In January, we piloted an update of our systems in the U.S. to limit recommendations of borderline content and harmful misinformation

We're looking to bring this updated system to more countries by the end of 2019. Thanks to this change, the number of views this type of content gets from recommendations has dropped by over 50% in the U.S. Our systems are also getting smarter about what types of videos should get this treatment, and we'll be able to apply it to even more borderline videos moving forward. As we do this, we'll also start raising up more authoritative content in recommendations

Continuing to reward trusted creators and enforce our monetization policies

we are strengthening enforcement of our existing YouTube Partner Program policies. Channels that repeatedly brush up against our hate speech policies will be suspended from the YouTube Partner program, meaning they can't run ads on their channel or use other monetization features like Super Chat.

In an article discussing this, Silicon Valley reporter Casey Newton of The Verge notes that this "is expected to result in the removal of thousands of channels across YouTube."

The crackdown goes into effect today and will "ramp up" over the next few days.

Aristarchus adds from Time:

The video streaming company says it has already made it more difficult to find and promote such videos, but it's now removing them outright. YouTube will also prohibit videos that deny certain proven events have taken place, such as the Holocaust.

The changes come as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other online services face mounting concern that the services allow, and in some cases foster , extremism.

YouTube's new policies will take effect immediately. Specifically, the service is banning videos "alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion." The ban applies to a range of characteristics, including race, sexual orientation and veteran status.

[...] The companies have said they are walking the balance between creating safe spaces while also protecting freedom of expression. With little government oversight on online material, internet companies have become the arbiters for what is and isn't allowed.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by NPC-131072 on Monday June 10 2019, @06:49PM (8 children)

    by NPC-131072 (7144) on Monday June 10 2019, @06:49PM (#853802) Journal

    Hello fren,

    Are you saying the media are acting like a cartel or something? No platforms for nazis [thepostmillennial.com] is not a difficult concept. There need be no financial incentive [nytimes.com] to do the right thing.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Redundant=1, Touché=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday June 10 2019, @07:01PM (7 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 10 2019, @07:01PM (#853812) Journal

    "Wah they're attacking Joe Rogan for the fake crime of constantly having guests on whose positions include ethnic cleansing"

    The intellectual vacuousness of "You call everyone you don't like nazis" (But please ignore that the article I'm losing my mind over clearly differentiated between being nazis and way-too-many-promotions-of-nazis) is always pretty astounding. It's always made by 100% shitty people. No exceptions. Every single time, flagrant lies.

    • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @08:09PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @08:09PM (#853842)

      Wah they're attacking Joe Rogan for the fake crime of constantly having guests on whose positions include ethnic cleansing

      Really? List them.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by ikanreed on Monday June 10 2019, @08:46PM (5 children)

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 10 2019, @08:46PM (#853856) Journal

        Someone else did a better breakdown than I ever could [twitter.com]

        Since that doesn't actually list the worst offenders:
        *Peter Bogghossian, a real piece of shit with the flimsiest of academic covers. Has written that all Muslims should be seen as exactly as threatening as Islamists because a gross misinterpretation of the biological concept of signaling theory. (And ironically because tribalism means Muslims must see all outsiders as threatening through contrivances). Also responsible for a lot of other alt-right propoganda, but we're trying to ID genocidal people here.
        *Milo Yiannopoulos who literally fucking worked for the Daily Fucking Stormer.
        *Candace "Hitler was okay until he left his borders" Owens.

        There's a lot of others who are way alt-right but steered clear of anything I'd call genocidal: Peterson, Rubin, Gaad Saad, Crowder, Shermer, and dozens of lesser-knowns.

        But regardless of the truth of the claims here you are, demanding more evidence of me, but not even questioning the link you got from the GGP that out and out lied about the content NYT article. I get that no one actually expects any kind of standard from the right, because "just asking questions" about the truth and never questioning blatant lies is easier than admitting you're bullshitting for the audience.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by The Vocal Minority on Tuesday June 11 2019, @12:17PM (4 children)

          by The Vocal Minority (2765) on Tuesday June 11 2019, @12:17PM (#854154) Journal

          This has got to be one of the stupidest non-troll comments I've ever seen posted on SN. That fact that it has, currently, moderation of +4 Informative is just embarrassing.

          After complaining about the 'The intellectual vacuousness of "You call everyone you don't like nazis"' in a previous post you have now gone and done just that!
          Peterson - not a Nazi, not alt-right
          Rubin - not a nazi (is actually a Jew), not alt-right
          Gaad Saad - not a Nazi (is actually a Jew), not alt-right

          I don't know so much about the rest of them, but I assume it it just as dubious to call them nazis or alt-right as well (I just had to check out the claim about Milo working for the daily stormer though, that was a good one! Yeah - complete bullshit). I do recall Bogghossian being one of the people who authored those joke articles that got published in a bunch of humanities journals lol, I'm assuming that is why you don't like him.

          You really should lay off the kool-aid man - you're starting to scare me.

          PS. if you want to post a video that supposedly proves that one of the above is a nazi, be sure to include the entire thing in context so we can see how much of an idiot you are.

          • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Tuesday June 11 2019, @03:08PM (3 children)

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 11 2019, @03:08PM (#854215) Journal

            I fucking knew it. I fucking knew there'd be a dishonest shit who'd pull some identify politics bullshit. These people aren't worth your integrity.

            Do you want an article from altright.com listing gad saad as one of "The seven hottest men in the alt right"?
            Do you want 8chan pol threads praising Peterson's role in radicalizing people?

            What standard of evidence would actually convince you, rather than a 6 deep chain denial where you ignore the literal daily stormer writer to quibble about people who are unequivocally alt-right purely on the basis of their religion, like that's some kind of inoculation against meritless ideologies that favor mass murder?

            Do you have any standard of evidence, or are you just a perpetual pedant whose whole life is centered on petty denialism?

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Vocal Minority on Tuesday June 11 2019, @04:42PM (2 children)

              by The Vocal Minority (2765) on Tuesday June 11 2019, @04:42PM (#854251) Journal

              I see you and your merry band of idiot moderators are insisting on doubling down on the stupid.

              So if a Nazi says something good about someone that makes that person a Nazi? Pure idiocy.

              Why not actually find out what the person themselves actually thinks about the Nazi ideology?
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBWyBdUYPgk [youtube.com]
              This is part of a lecture series on the big 5 personality traits but it is the best example I could think of off the top of my head.

              Break out of you bubble and stop being a tool of ideologues.

              • (Score: 1, Troll) by ikanreed on Tuesday June 11 2019, @06:26PM (1 child)

                by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 11 2019, @06:26PM (#854306) Journal

                That's the other one. That's the other bullshit line you have.

                "You must not be familiar with them and you take them out of context"

                The fact that instead of answering the fucking question about what your actual standard of evidence is, you find a new pedantry to pursue, unrelated to the one before is a giant red flag. A piece of crimson fabric stretching from Huston to the sea of tranquility. If I found myself just constantly shifting not just the burden of proof and my goalposts for what must be proven but the subject at hand in a conversation, I'd take it as a reason to rethink my position.

                Keep in mind that I more than demonstrated my original position, that Rogan hosts people who have in their stable of awful positions, some form of genocide(and that the OP was fucking lying about what an NYT article says).

                And now, the position you're expecting me to defend, is that Jordan Peterson is an open Nazi, a position I was very clear I wasn't taking. (Though there are things like his assertions about postmodernism being a "cultural marxist" plot to undo the west is 1930s nazi propaganda reformulated only in the barest way, which I'd say are more than adequate for lumping him in the alt-right) It's nothing short of flagrant intellectual dishonesty.

                When you can't do anything but chase dishonest representations of minute supporting details of arguments, just stop. Stop forever.

                • (Score: 1) by The Vocal Minority on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:56PM

                  by The Vocal Minority (2765) on Thursday June 13 2019, @12:56PM (#855108) Journal

                  At this point in time responding to you is probably pretty pointless but your post is like a huge pimple of bad reasoning that I feel I just have to squeeze. OK here goes.

                  That's the other one. That's the other bullshit line you have.

                  "You must not be familiar with them and you take them out of context"

                  I like how I have now become another faceless tormentor, calling out your bullshit. Part of a vast alt-right conspiracy out to cut down your tower of self-righteousness.

                  Have you ever considered that the reason you keep getting accused of taking things out of context and accusing people you disagree with of being nazis is because, maybe, just maybe, that is exactly what you do?

                  The fact that instead of answering the fucking question about what your actual standard of evidence is, you find a new pedantry to pursue, unrelated to the one before is a giant red flag. A piece of crimson fabric stretching from Huston to the sea of tranquility. If I found myself just constantly shifting not just the burden of proof and my goalposts for what must be proven but the subject at hand in a conversation, I'd take it as a reason to rethink my position.

                  Probably because you posed it as a rhetorical question, after the nazi-by-association nonsense I called you out on. And in any case I did pretty much imply what evidence I would accept by, you know, linking to what the person ACTUALLY said. I will concede though, given your obvious mental problems, you could not have been expected to pick up on that. And as for the second part of the quoted text, loved that one because then we get:

                  And now, the position you're expecting me to defend, is that Jordan Peterson is an open Nazi, a position I was very clear I wasn't taking.

                  No you had quite clearly tried to imply Saad and Peterson were nazi's, or at least alt-right which is pretty much the same thing these days (and as you yourself imply below). Perhaps you need to take some of your own advice? Yes originally it was "supporting genocide", which although not quite equal to nazi it is part of what the nazi's (amongst others) have done and are known for, and saying Rogan, Saad or Peterson support it is equally vacuous.

                  (Though there are things like his assertions about postmodernism being a "cultural marxist" plot to undo the west is 1930s nazi propaganda reformulated only in the barest way, which I'd say are more than adequate for lumping him in the alt-right) It's nothing short of flagrant intellectual dishonesty.

                  And in the very next sentence we now we are back to implying nazi, this time because they have both criticised communism. Flagrant intellectual dishonesty? Oh I agree! I'm somewhat reminded of Chomskys analogy of the thief, who when caught with their hand in someone's pocket, immediately accuses their intended victim of being a thief to divert suspicion from themselves.

                  Oh I almost missed this.

                  Keep in mind that I more than demonstrated my original position, that Rogan hosts people who have in their stable of awful positions, some form of genocide(and that the OP was fucking lying about what an NYT article says).

                  Moving goalposts again? I said nothing about the original claim, which I suspect was largely just a troll designed to send you off on a frothy rage. Worked didn't it?

                  When you can't do anything but chase dishonest representations of minute supporting details of arguments, just stop. Stop forever.

                  Why yes of course sir, I will stop immediately, lol. More crying "thief".

                  Oh well that was fun, if a little time consuming - I don't hold out much hope you but at least you have gone from scary (I thought you were going to keep doubling down on the nazi thing, which would have been a worry) to humorously sad.