From The Verge, an article on autonomous weapons systems:
YouTube’s new policies designed to more aggressively tackle supremacist content have also led to some creators claiming their videos have been improperly removed or hidden in the process. They argue that YouTube is not distinguishing between actual hate content and videos that document hate groups for educational or journalistic purposes.
In militaries, there is a saying: "Friendly fire isn't."
YouTube announced on Wednesday that it was taking stronger measures to ban “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.” It was only minutes later that creators began to see channels being removed or videos pulled down — including a channel run by a history teacher, a video uploaded by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and independent journalist Ford Fischer.
Fischer is a YouTube-based reporter who covers politics, activism, and extremism. He’s shot footage at events like the Unite the Right white supremacy rally that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, as well as gay pride parades. Some of his footage is used by documentarians and educators to study extremism and activist groups around the world, Fischer tells The Verge.
Looks like YouTube is going to demonetize aristarchus!
Previously: YouTube Clamps Down Further on Undesireable Speech
(Score: 3, Disagree) by ilPapa on Thursday June 20 2019, @03:31AM (12 children)
YouTube still has some bugs to work out, but their attempts at getting rid of YouTube hate speech, fake news, and 8chan white supremacist videos is a good start.
On the other hand, Alphabet should still be broken up into little pieces. The anti-trust laws are there for a very good reason.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by HiThere on Thursday June 20 2019, @04:16AM (1 child)
They're not only there for a good reason, but they aren't enforced nearly enough. And even if they were enforced fully and fairly, they still don't handle a lot of corner cases properly.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Thursday June 20 2019, @04:23AM
I modded you insightful, as I believe it is, but FTFY anyway.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 20 2019, @06:19AM (9 children)
Alphabet should still be broken up into little pieces.
Why? Where's the antitrust? Are they colluding with all the other internet video channels? Youtube isn't the only railroad that passes through town, are they?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Thursday June 20 2019, @06:48AM (3 children)
I didn't say break up YouTube, I said break up Alphabet. And as you probably already know, there does not have to be an absolute monopoly to violate anti-trust laws.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 20 2019, @06:51AM (2 children)
Yeah, I've been through this. So where are they coming close to bumping into the law?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:46PM (1 child)
they aren't so much close to running into the law as close to running into society
they are effectively a private sector STASI, that's their business model
except that the amount of information they have is orders of magnitudes more reliable and just plain more then what the actual STASI managed to gather
this is gonna be abused sooner or later
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:41PM
Oh Please! Let's cut the dramatics. If "society" has a problem, it can trivially turn its collective back. Nobody's being dragged into the office and forced to confess...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday June 20 2019, @01:45PM (4 children)
This is one of the areas where (IMHO) anti-trust law falls down. Alphabet has (and continues to) used its market dominance in certain areas, to dominate other, related, markets.
This is referred to as vertical market integration [investopedia.com].
While there is no collusion or price-fixing per se (if you own all the companies, it can't be collusion, as you're all one happy family, right?), Alphabet attains and maintains market dominance by suppressing competition and increasing barriers to entry.
That playbook is nothing new (think company towns [wikipedia.org]), and can be seen in other areas like ISPs/Cable TV providers/entertainment studios and the like.
Monopolies? Not quite. Monopolistic? definitely. Anti-competitive? You betcha!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 20 2019, @04:08PM (3 children)
Alphabet attains and maintains market dominance by suppressing competition and increasing barriers to entry.
The evidence of that is what I am interested in. If they are actually interfering, attempting to close a market to competitors, then of course they should be shut down. I don't know if securing the supply chain qualifies.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday June 20 2019, @04:18PM (2 children)
What does that mean in the context of Alphabet?
I'm not being contrary, I just don't get how the phrase "securing the supply chain" is used in the context of an advertising company.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 20 2019, @04:42PM (1 child)
Isn't that what "vertigo market integration" is all about? I mean you brought it up, I'm just following the lead. Isn't owning the suppliers and retailers to avoid the headaches of negotiation with outsiders a good thing?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday June 20 2019, @05:46PM
I'm guessing you meant "vertical." No. It's not necessarily a bad thing. At the same time, it can be.
My original point was that anti-trust regulators don't pay enough attention to ant-competitive practices WRT vertical integration as compared with horizontal integration. I don't think they pay enough attention to the latter either, but even less so for the former.
I saw an interesting piece the other day, not all of which I agree with, but it raises some interesting points around market dominance [nytimes.com]:
It's not about anti-trust per se, but it raises questions around innovation, entrepreneurship and economic expansion/stability/stagnation.
My take is that more competition is an economic good, and consolidation, centralization and vertical integration *tend* to retard competition. If, and when, that becomes unacceptable anti-competitive behavior is (unless it's particularly obvious/egregious) above my pay grade. As such, it seems like we should be looking at this harder. Not with some predetermined goal of finding or manufacturing issues to prosecute, but with the goal of encouraging competition and reducing barriers to entry.
All that said, reasonable (and unreasonable -- then again they may agree too) people may disagree.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr