SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
YouTube bans videos containing hacked information that could interfere with the election:
As Democrats and Republicans prepare to hold their national conventions starting next week, YouTube on Thursday announced updates to its policies on deceptive videos and other content designed to interfere with the election.
The world's largest video platform, with more than 2 billion users a month, will ban videos containing information that was obtained through hacking and could meddle with elections or censuses. That would include material like hacked campaign emails with details about a candidate. The update follows the announcement of a similar rule that Google, which owns YouTube, unveiled earlier this month banning ads that contain hacked information. Google will start enforcing that policy Sept. 1.
YouTube also said it will take down videos that encourage people to interfere with voting and other democratic processes. For example, videos telling people to create long lines at polling places in order to stifle the vote won't be allowed.
[...] YouTube has also tried to secure its platform from foreign actors. Last week, the company said it banned almost 2,600 channels linked to China as part of investigations into "coordinated influence operations" on the site. YouTube also took down dozens of channels linked to Russia and Iran that had apparent ties to influence campaigns.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 14 2020, @05:43PM (35 children)
I think it's dangerous territory to have a content platform censoring speech at all. It's too easily abused. Shutting down malicious foreign state actors sounds good on paper, but it's too easy to cross the line to shutting down speech you don't like from actual citizens and using that accusation as an excuse to do it.
More broadly speaking, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the rest of Big Tech have already been censoring voices they don't like on their platforms, shutting down channels/accounts on increasingly flimsy pretexts. They might think they're protecting democracy in so doing, but they're actually critically undermining it; shutting up voices they don't like doesn't make those voices go away, it simply makes them angry(ier?) and drive them to express themselves in less salubrious ways. In America, we call people who do what Big Tech are doing, "fascists."
In a pluralistic democracy, the proper response to ideas and arguments you don't like is to counter them.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday August 14 2020, @06:47PM (25 children)
We've been over this many times: You have the right to speak. You don't have the right to use somebody else's PA system to give your speech without their permission. You have the right to put a sign on your lawn. You don't have the right to put a sign on somebody else's lawn without their permission. You have the right to put up a website. You don't have the right to put content on somebody else's website without their permission.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al do in fact have the right to censor their contents, for whatever reason they damn well please. If you have an account on any of those sites, they told you that in the legal contract you agreed to (but probably didn't read) when you signed up. Don't like it? Go to a different website that will allow you to post your material, or set up your own website.
And you're going to say "But the audience is on Google / Facebook / Twitter et al!" So what? You don't have a right to demand that people listen to or read your stuff if they don't want to. And if you're going to argue "But without Google / Facebook / Twitter, my speech won't mater politically", I should point out that QAnon started on 8-chan where there are specifically no censorship rules, and now has millions of citizens and a congressional candidate claiming to believe it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 14 2020, @07:20PM (13 children)
You're walking a thin line there. Your tech companies are working hard to sway the elections. No company or corporation has the right to silence dissenting voices. You're asking us to accept that the KGB would have been a good thing, if only it weren't run by the state.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday August 14 2020, @07:33PM (12 children)
That's just it: They aren't silencing anybody, they're forcing them to use different tools to get their message out. Those are not the same things.
And if you don't believe companies have the remove people from their privately-controlled spaces based on the content of their speech, try going on a loud, angry, and possibly obscene tirade in a fancy restaurant and see how long it takes for you to be kicked out.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 14 2020, @07:53PM (11 children)
A restaurant doesn't put itself into business by claiming to be a public forum.
A better analogy would be the town square.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 14 2020, @08:16PM (3 children)
Show me where YouTube claims to be a public forum.
A public space owned by the government is just about the work analogy possibly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @12:29AM (1 child)
Youtube opened its gates wide in the early days to gain usershare.
2006 "Come, come to YouTube. We welcome all. Copyrights and standards are for old people. No, pay no attention to our competitors. Come, come to YouTube"
2013 "Ok guys, we're implementing automated DMCA requests now. I'm sure you understand."
2020 "All videos will be actively monitored to meet State Department recommended guidelines and party political requests"
The speed and alacrity of the turnabout could only be done as shamelessly in silicon valley.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @01:57AM
At one time, wasn't their tagline "Broadcast yourself"?
I don't think they would follow State Department guidelines in 2020. That is a Trump administration division. If Biden wins, then maybe. Currently, they will follow guidelines provided by ownership, within the limits of what influencers on Twitter approve of, and their vocal staff won't walk off for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @02:24AM
Private property open to the public.
Like a shopping mall, a restaurant, etc...
It's private property. It's open to the public.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday August 14 2020, @08:45PM (6 children)
The town square is a publicly owned space, and the only people that can (legally) kick you out of the town square are the government. Social media websites are privately owned, and if you don't like their rules you can take your eyeballs and your content elsewhere. That's an important distinction.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 14 2020, @09:14PM (5 children)
You make it sound so easy to take your views someplace else.
Take Gab, for instance. All those people kicked off of a more-or-less public forum. They went someplace else, only to see the public forums come after them. "We won't rent you server space!" Oh - money. The Woke people control a lot of financial institutions - and refuse to transfer money to them. Kinda like happened to Wikileaks and Assange. Yeah, it takes some degree of governmental cooperation to pull it off, but one can always find a sympathetic judge if one shops around.
In today's real world, we see monopolistic megacorps deciding what people are permitted to think. And, that all good with most of you.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday August 15 2020, @12:13AM
That's because it is quite easy to take your views someplace else. How easy, you ask? You're doing it right now.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @07:17AM (3 children)
So the Capitalists are suddenly all about Communism because they feel discriminated against.
It is the most hypocritical thing in the world, since basically the dawn of recorded history conservatives have been prejudiced against anyone "different" and used to murder various groups for religious affiliation, sexual choice, skin color, and probably many more.
And now that the private ownership of capital is supposedly working against conservatives they are suddenly all about forcing people to do what they want. And no the baker did not end up having to bake a gay cake, but he did have to bake A cake. He simply didn't have to put a "gay" message on it.
So whine away you fucking retard hypocrite, once you contradict your own deeply held beliefs for partisan reasons (you're being fed lies), well, you're the identity politicking piece of shit.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday August 15 2020, @02:00PM (2 children)
Uhhhhh - capitalism is a fairly recent development, measured in hundreds of years. If you were paying attention in school, you would know that our recorded history extends back thousands of years. Can you spell "Babylon"? Or "Greece"? How about "Egypt"? "China" and "Laos" would be good. Try "Indus". Bonus points if you can spell "Jiahu".
So, the ills of humanity can be blamed on something other than capitalism for most of recorded history, and all of pre-history.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 16 2020, @11:08PM (1 child)
Could you please go take your stupid somewhere else? You contradict yourself 1/2 the time, hold hypocritical viewpoints, and you support fascism cause "dem leftists" with no concrete rationale beyond "some people rioted" while saying mass shooters are just "lone nuts."
It is too much, you're too old and stupid, lucky for you we have a constitution that works to protect your existence. Sadly for you, you are working hard to help fascists undermine your own protections.
You're such a fool.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 16 2020, @11:14PM
Triggered, much?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @08:02PM (3 children)
If they choose to exercise editorial control, they need to be fully liable for any libelous statement any user has posted there against anyone.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 14 2020, @09:35PM (2 children)
Soylent News exercises editorial control. Should we be fully liable is some AC posts some slander?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @10:28PM (1 child)
Do provide examples how SN is exercising editorial control here in the comment section.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @03:48AM
It should be obvious to anyone here who views the posts that are alleged to have been written by aristarchus.
Clearly there is someone secretly editing his posts to make him out to be some kind of rabid lunatic who is tilting at the alt-right windmill. Nice try, editors, but we can see through your charade!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 14 2020, @08:09PM (3 children)
And we've been over it just as many times, Thexalon, in saying that as much as that is true according to the letter of the law now, the practical effect is the same thing as saying that the phone company can choose to not connect your calls because they don't like your politics. Let's not be coy about what that practical effect is--you are silencing them by artificially limiting who can hear. Let's not pretend that you're not. Silencing people whose politics you don't like is going to redound on you catastrophically.
It is dangerous.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday August 14 2020, @09:01PM (2 children)
And by that exact same logic, any system for filtering phone spam is bad and wrong - after all, the spammers are just sharing their opinion that they have something very important to tell you about your car's extended warranty, and why should that get blocked and your speech not get blocked?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @09:11PM
Not at all, if it is the end user choosing not to listen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @09:57PM
The phone company doesn't block spammers, they ring through then, after receiving the call, I can block that number from ringing through the next time. Nothing done proactively by the phone company.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @09:40PM (1 child)
Fe di verse!
Build your own platform and connect it to the fediverse! It's the capitalist thing to do!
Mostly what I'm interested in is whether some kind of right-wing negaverse will emerge if most of the fediverse doesn't care to link with fascist-oriented nodes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @09:42PM
oops, meant to respond to Phoenix instead
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @12:08AM
And they don't have the right to outsource their moderation to foreign agents of a banned terrorist organization [archive.org] and gaslight everyone about whether it is happening or not while pretending that they are only banning "hate speech". This is a crime called treason [cornell.edu], and the penalty is death for all co-conspirators.
(and they ban people for saying that as "incitement to violence")
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @06:49PM
So the best idea with videos about how to interfere with people's ability to vote is to say please don't do that? Let alone you requiring that someone host your content? Sounds like you want to nationalize social media, sounds awfully communist to me!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Friday August 14 2020, @08:26PM
There's a real problem here. In the first place you're absolutely correct, but in the second mobs aren't democracy either.
ISTM that democracy has a scaling problem. This isn't unusual, as almost ALL organizations do. Democracy's scaling limit seems to be around 500 people, but only that high if they're constrained to be calm and reasonable. Beyond that point you need additional structuring rules. (Actually to even approach 500 you need lots of structuring rules. The House of Representatives only has 435 members, and it has many structuring rules, including a Sergeant at Arms, and it still breaks down occasionally.)
That said, I don't trust commercial interests either, and Facebook is an especially bad example. attrib: "They 'trust me'. Dumb fucks." -Mark Zuckerberg.
Roberts Rules of Order was an attempt to scale up the system (well, to make it more efficient in smaller groups). Slashdot and later Soylent News attempt to solve the problem with moderation to limited success. They still need super users with "supercow privileges" to handle some cases. But without the structure you have a mob, which may be emotionally stimulating, but which is almost guaranteed to make bad decisions. The choices will be made by the loudest and most emotional voices.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @10:13PM (1 child)
The abuses are already present. Corporate media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, etc. are all monetized on Youtube, whereas independent content creators like David Pakman and Kyle Kulinski routinely have their videos demonetized, and sometimes outright removed due to bogus copyright claims. Youtube's algorithms are also aggressively promoting corporate media videos, whereas before it was more neutral.
It turns out that Silicon Valley oligarchs aren't your friends. Who knew?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @11:17PM
Perhaps more people should do Youtube videos specifically detailing how IP laws are hindering free speech and how the law should be changed to prevent this.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday August 15 2020, @08:09PM (3 children)
I think it's dangerous territory to pretend like something new is going on when private businesses have been catering to the wishes of their customers for centuries. I was going to joke that soon you lot will suddenly scream about censorship when your neighbors put out campaign signs in their lawns opposing your political views, but what would have been a light-hearted busting or your balls has in recent months become more of a prediction of the next level of stupidity we can expect in the near-future.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday August 16 2020, @05:32PM (2 children)
Alright, then. So you'd be OK with AT&T, Verizon, or some other private business running your phone service to cut you off because they don't like your political leanings? It's the same thing as what Google/YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and other Big Tech companies are doing. Are you OK with Amazon refusing to deliver anything to you because they don't like your political leanings? Why not, because by your logic they're a "private business?" Oh, wait, you need them? Well, too bad, according to Tork's logic.
Do I really need to spell out, letter by letter, why this sort of thing is dangerous for a country that wants to be a pluralistic democracy? When we play at this sort of thing, we're not a country anymore but a civil war. If that's what you guys all want, if that's what you're hungering for, then you'll get it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday August 16 2020, @05:46PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 16 2020, @11:39PM
We had a regime like that, back in the 1950s when "good, respectable" white people would "call out" and "deplatform" businesses that would dare to serve black customers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 16 2020, @06:45AM
When I saw "hacked information", I thought of whistleblowers releasing internal information, like what happened to the democrats in 2016.
Weren't the democrats high on "whistleblowers" sometime last year for the previous anti-Trump campaign until they pivoted to Covid-19?