SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: -1, Troll) by jmorris on Monday June 10 2019, @08:04PM (5 children)
Remember, SJWs Always Lie. While they did nuke every mention of Nazis, apparently including every documentary on WWII (ironic to do that right after the big D-Day remembrance, or is it?) that wasn't their real target, only chaff. They are nuking the anti-vaxxers, the low card diet promoters, Anti Warmists, anyone questioning modern Scientism's official doctrines.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @09:29PM (4 children)
So you're saying people putting out fiction and trying to portray them as fact, then. Thank you.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Monday June 10 2019, @10:45PM (3 children)
Personally I'm dubious but keeping an eye on the anti-vax movement. They have really upped the number of things they vaccinate kids against in a pretty short time. So the evidence to date isn't convincing but the reaction implies there is something being hidden from the public. The government would NEVER hide things from us, right?
The danger of the low fat diet, high carb diet the government pushes should be obvious to everyone by now. Sorry you are an idiot. And my views on AGW and Scientism vs Science are known well enough to avoid a rehash.
Because all of that misses the frickin' point. If people don't have the right to be wrong on these and a thousand other issues it is only because somebody has gained the power to declare what is right and ban any dissent. What part of that sounds like a country you want to live in?
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday June 11 2019, @06:24PM (2 children)
It is said that your right to swing your fist ends at someone else's face. Denying AGW and being pro-disease will fuck up the society that I (and my son and everyone else I care about) live in.
If it were just a matter of these things being detrimental only to the deniers and pro-diseasers I'd be all for letting them believe in their nonsense, like a flat-earther. The flat-earthers aren't going to harm anyone with their beliefs, but the deniers and pro-diseasers are going to harm a LOT of people with their stupidity.
Neither vaccines nor AGW have anything to do with "scientism". There are enormous amounts of data and evidence on each subject. Vaccines have never been sold as 100% foolproof and safe for each and everyone. There are always a small percentage that don't respond to the vaccine and some that respond badly to them. This has NOT been hidden.
I'm not going to try and debate AGW with a denier, but I will say that I am going to trust climate scientists over ANY organization with a financial interest in CO2 production.
You can trust the judgement of a playboy model and big oil executives instead of scientists, that's your business. Just keep your fist away from my face.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday June 12 2019, @02:33AM (1 child)
For the purposes of debate, lets grant the vaxx issue. But remember that we weren't debating whether to mandate everyone has to be vaccinated for reasons of public safety. We were debating whether it is acceptable for ban all discussion of that issue, that it is so decided that we will punish anyone who even questions the official policy. Your position is that mere questioning of the Science is so harmful to public safety that it should be forbidden. So my point returns. Who decides? How does a Republic decide on who decides they are so right they will not only carry the day on the policy debate today but will never need to worry again because all further debate is illegal. And are we really ready to let GOOGLE be the decider? Would you trust a Legislature with that terrible power? The Supreme Court? Would you give President Trump that power? How can there even be any sort of "consent of the governed" in your world? Is a Constitutional Republic even possible in your world? And just how far are you willing to carry this ban? Would you make it like Holocaust denial in Germany, would you put people in prison for simply questioning it in a private conversation? Will the ban apply to scientists? If someone makes a horrible discovery will they will be imprisoned for ringing the alarm bell? Can Legislators be punished / removed from office for speaking of forbidden subjects? And again, who decides?
We end up where I started above, asking if that sounds like a country you would want to live in?
Accept reality, those dead White Guys on the money in your pocket saw all these possibilities and were a lot wiser than you. Free debate is the only path to a lasting political consensus. You aren't happy with the results so you want to kick over the table. But you aren't thinking ahead to the consequences.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday June 12 2019, @04:43PM
I have zero problems with the discussion and questioning of "Science"; that's how it is supposed to work!
I dislike the capitalization of "Science" when it isn't the first word in a sentence, which somehow makes it seem like some deity that requires capitalization (ie. God, Allah, Him, His, blah blah blah). Science is not a monolithic deity; it is a process and method that attempts to explain the observations of the world around us.
It's the constant shoveling of bullshit that I have a problem with. It is the deliberate erosion of critical thinking and deliberate propaganda to sow distrust in science for the sole purpose of protecting power and profits that I have a problem with. It is the constant drumbeat of elevating Belief over Evidence that I have a problem with.
You bring up great points about the banning of discussion, and I even agree with it. The problem is that too many people have been raised to Believe and not Think; to blindly accept what some authority figure tells them no matter how illogical, dishonest, or utterly wrong it is without even looking at (or in spite of) the evidence. And there is no consequence for the shoveling of bullshit either. If everyone looked at claims with a critical eye I'd agree with you completely.
To get back to the original topic and respond to one of your questions: on Youtube, Google IS the decider. They own it. They are not stopping these idiots from spewing their nonsense; they are free to go spew their nonsense on some other video sharing site. Google/Youtube just doesn't have to hand them their megaphone.
The government is theoretically not allowed to have that power due to the First Amendment (it gets ignored as much as the rest of it does, but that's a different discussion).
I am all too aware of reality, but I'm not willing to accept the status quo. Bullshit and propaganda reign supreme in this world of belief over evidence, and that is a table that needs to be kicked over. The consequences of not doing so are dire.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.