Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Thursday June 20 2019, @01:23AM   Printer-friendly
from the But-it-said-"breast" dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 20 2019, @04:08PM (3 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday June 20 2019, @04:08PM (#858004) Journal

    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)

    I don't know if securing the supply chain qualifies.

    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)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday June 20 2019, @04:42PM (#858039) Journal

      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

        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?

        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]:

        As big companies grow more dominant, life gets tougher for entrepreneurs. Start-ups represent a declining share of all companies in Britain, Italy, Spain, Sweden, the United States and many other industrialized economies. The United States is generating start-ups — and shutting down established companies — at the slowest rates since at least the 1970s.
        [...]
        These, then, are the trademarks of the fat and slow world: larger corporations, declining competition and fewer start-ups, which together undermine and slow economies already hindered by falling growth in the working-age population.

        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