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: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @11:05PM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @11:05PM (#853953)

    Geez Louise! I didn't even mod you down.

    Why don't you give it a rest, friend. Doesn't it make your head hurt to blather on like that?

    What's more, I'm not censoring you. I'm not even calling you a moron. I'm saying that your moronic blather doesn't even match the levels of dumb of the jackass you pretend to be.

    Hell! The crap you spew isn't even of high enough quality to mock.

    But there's no censorship here (and thank you to SN management and staff for keeping it that way), so I guess I'll just have to wait until your idiocy gets old for you or you have an aneurysm from processing such horse hockey.

    In the mean time, have at it. I hope whatever perverse pleasure you get out of this is worth it.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Flamebait=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @11:15PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @11:15PM (#853960)

    so I guess I'll just have to wait until your idiocy gets old for you or you have an aneurysm from processing such horse hockey.

    Wasted time in waiting.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @05:36AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @05:36AM (#854080)

      Wasted time in waiting.

      So what, exactly, do you suggest I do instead? Hunt this guy down and cut off his fingers?

  • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by realDonaldTrump on Monday June 10 2019, @11:26PM (11 children)

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Monday June 10 2019, @11:26PM (#853966) Homepage Journal

    You don't call it Censorship. When I put in the story of how Facebook silenced so many beautiful conservative, and other voices. And Editor Janrinok says, "oh, no thanks, that's too political." But he runs the same kind of story, when it comes from somebody else. Not from Donald J. Trump. And you thank him for it. Very sad. And, very foolish!!

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @01:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @01:16AM (#854005)

      just call a drone strike on him

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 11 2019, @05:15AM (9 children)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 11 2019, @05:15AM (#854074) Journal

      But he runs the same kind of story, when it comes from somebody else.

      We also have to look at the quality of the submission. Is it written factually and without bias? Is it supported by credible sources? In essence, does it comply with the submission guidelines [soylentnews.org]? If you dropped your rDT persona you would probably fare far better in your submissions.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday June 11 2019, @06:08AM (8 children)

        by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Tuesday June 11 2019, @06:08AM (#854091) Homepage Journal

        You're saying what I said, in a little bit of a different way. You look at who a Sub comes from. And if it comes from someone in you're tight little Click it sails right through. If it comes from someone you don't like -- even if it's from a Subscriber -- very hard to get to Front, or Main "page." No matter what's inside it. The Facebook Story was covered by Breitbart and I did a Sub about it. Then Aristarchus, who apparently hates you, did 2 Subs about it. With Links to 2 Liberal sites known as Mary Sue & The Slate. Saying something very nasty about you in one of them and really, I can understand why that one didn't go through. And in one of them he called me a liar for no good reason. For no reason at all. But, I didn't call anybody a liar. Even the ones that are. I just gave the Link, and a Quote. Sometimes referred to as, Quotation. And, nothing from you about quality. Nothing about "credible." Really, Breitbart & FoxNews cover the same story as Slate and the other and it's not "credible" to you? Just "oh it's political, no thank you."

        And by the way, for those (many) that didn't see that one. The Breitbart Link. breitbart.com/tech/2019/05/03/facebook-bans-dangerous-conservative-figures-but-continues-to-allow-leftist-calls-for-violence [breitbart.com]

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 11 2019, @02:49PM (2 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 11 2019, @02:49PM (#854211) Journal

          does it comply with the submission guidelines?

          From the submission guidelines:

          Don't grumble about rejection of your submission. As the site grows, more people will submit the same story.

          • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:09AM (1 child)

            by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:09AM (#854538) Homepage Journal

            Many stories go through, very quickly, with just 1 Sub. And I would say, there's only 1 Sub for most stories. There were 4 Subs for this one. From 2 people. And you're telling me that wasn't enough. Unbelieveable! I guess you think "the site grows" from having Bullshit spread all over it.

            • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:29AM

              by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:29AM (#854543) Homepage Journal

              By the way, it was actually 5 Subs! Because Aristarchus did one with the Link to Esquire. We've all heard of Esquire, right?

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 11 2019, @03:31PM (4 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 11 2019, @03:31PM (#854226) Journal

          You look at who a Sub comes from.

          No, we really don't. We read it first. The most important criteria for a story is the content, not the submitter. Is it well written or is it full of spelling mistakes? Is it something that we have not discussed recently? Is it 'on-topic' for this site? Will it interest our community? We can rewrite and help with submissions if someone has made an effort and we accept any version of English.

          And if it comes from someone in you're tight little Click it sails right through.

          and

          Then Aristarchus, who apparently hates you, ...[had his submission accepted]

          You have just destroyed your own argument. If I had a 'clique' (not click!), which I don't, then neither you nor Aristarchus would be in it.

          I gave several reasons why a story might be rejected. You concentrated on one of them. In fact, it is because you tend to submit stories in your adopted persona that many get rejected. If you write like an adult, as I hinted at in an earlier post, then your submissions would stand a much better chance of being accepted. It is the quality of the submission that lets you down - that is the 'reason' that you avoided considering from the ones that I quoted to you.

          If you are going to refer to a specific story please link to it. I'm not going to spend too much time trying to find which 'Facebook' story you are referring to.

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @09:49PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11 2019, @09:49PM (#854394)

            Smackitty smack, RDT please don't come back.

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday June 11 2019, @11:47PM (1 child)

            Thank you JR.

            Your patience and tolerance are really something to see. I, for one, really appreciate it.

            Even though User 6614 [soylentnews.org] repeatedly (both obviously and poorly) attempted to troll you, you calmly and precisely explained the site's Submission Guidelines [soylentnews.org] at least twice.

            As much as I, personally, find that this particular user seems to spend most of his (her?) time spewing semi-literate, mostly off-topic drivel over most stories, it's important to maintain a sense of perspective.

            You have acted professionally, even though your primary interlocutor in this thread has been all over the place.

            Your actions are a credit to SN and, IMHO, worthy of note. Again, thank you!

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:23AM

            by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @06:23AM (#854540) Homepage Journal

            You gave one reason why you rejected it. You said it was "left/right politics." Nothing about the Quality. Which is a Fake reason you're coming up with now. When Facebook bans people, it's too political and you reject. But, when YouTube bans videos you put it through. Double standard.

            And, you misquoted me. You said I said that Aristarchus "had his submission accepted." WRONG. I said Aristarchus made 2 Subs and both were rejected. And actually, he did 3 that were rejected about the Facebook story. I thought it was 2, I just saw another. And you can see them all if you look for the Subs that mention Louis Farrakhan.