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: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday June 11 2019, @12:23AM (1 child)

    by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday June 11 2019, @12:23AM (#853987)

    The problem, as I keep saying, is Youtube and other social media types keep demanding they receive all of the benefits of a publisher and none of the liabilities. That they ALSO receive all of the benefits of being a platform / common carrier while accepting none of the responsibilities that normally go with that status.

    Nice try, but you're very wrong about this, in two ways:
    1. What are the liabilities of being a publisher you're referring to? The fact is that publishers can and do publish pretty much whatever the heck they'd like. And no, they aren't liable for libel if they publish something that's inflammatory: That's on the authors, or "content creators" in the new jargon. As for their copyright-related responsibilities, they have both a legislative requirement that they follow, and court settlements with copyright owners that quash content that breaks copyright regularly.

    2. A platform isn't the same thing as a common carrier. For instance, Fox News is a platform, but I doubt you would demand that they cover the Biden presidential campaign in a way that Biden was happy about, because Fox News viewers have the simple remedy of changing the channel. By contrast, if AT&T were preventing all traffic related to the Joe Biden campaign from reaching all of their Internet customers, especially if AT&T is a telecom monopoly for an area, that's a different issue entirely, because the remedy is either ridiculously expensive or non-existent.

    If video creators or viewers don't like the rules of Youtube, they can create or view videos on a competing service. And it's entirely possible to set up your own service if one of the existing competing services doesn't meet your needs. If any competitor does well enough, they can hire some of the smart people who have worked on Youtube's algorithms to make good search and recommendation engines. All of this can happen under current law with no government action or further government regulation, and the cost to users for switching is a matter of a different word in a browser address bar.

    So again, how is your complaint boil down to anything but "A private company won't allow me to use its resources and popularity to make my statements available to a wider audience, but I want to, so the government should force them to change that policy"? If so, why is that same principle not in play for the New York Times print edition, or online news websites like InfoWars, but is in play for Youtube? Or is it that your real principles in play here have jack squat to do with free speech or law and everything to do with wanting your viewpoint spread by all means available and you're mad that somebody is making that harder?

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday June 12 2019, @01:56AM

    by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday June 12 2019, @01:56AM (#854471)

    What are the liabilities of being a publisher you're referring to?

    Responsibility for what -THEY- publish. They can't just say "We aren't responsible for user generated content, but if you notify us we will remove illegal stuff." If they are a publisher, no Safe Harbor provision of the CDA, DMCA, etc. for them. If they are a platform, then they can't exercise editorial control but they DO get the Safe Harbor.

    A platform isn't the same thing as a common carrier. For instance, Fox News is a platform

    Ok, let me stop you right there, I see your problem. You are a retard. *** RETARD ALERT *** You will just have to imagine the GIF of Mr. Garrison ringing the bell since this isn't an imageboard.

    Fox News is a publisher, not a platform. Doh. They make no pretense of being a neutral carrier open to anyone to publish content across. Other than their comment section of course, that is sorta open. At least they still HAVE a comment section, which is more than most other media outlets can say.

    By contrast, if AT&T were preventing all traffic related to the Joe Biden campaign from reaching all of their Internet customers, especially if AT&T is a telecom monopoly

    Being a monopoly isn't the problem. (OK, it is a problem, just not the problem under discussion today.) Again, your mental defects are impairing your reasoning to the point it is hard to even communicate across such a gulf. The second AT&T starts picking and choosing who you can connect to across their network for any reason other than legal problems (takedown notices, blatant infringing behavior, etc.) or purely technical network administration issues / problems (trying to HOST the Biden campaign website on the end of your cable modem or something equally idiotic, trying to fairly ration finite bandwidth to all customers, etc.) they stop being a platform and become a publisher.

    And it's entirely possible to set up your own service if one of the existing competing services doesn't meet your needs.

    Actually, it isn't. YouTube operates as a loss leader to prevent any competitor from being economically viable. The libertarians will say they make it up on the back end by driving traffic through the Googleplex so it is OK, but the cynic would say it is to maintain a monopoly on the global conversation. And if it really were so easy, if moving off YouTube were so painless, why so much angst among the banned and more tellingly why so much political agitation on the Left to deplatform all of their foes from it? And please don't be so dumb you fail to see the power of the network effect at work on YouTube and the far greater one at work on Facebook, Twitter and the others. It isn't QUITE like telling someone in 1970 that if they don't like AT&T, or that AT&T closed their account, they are free to start a competitor, but it is pretty close.