Facebook, YouTube Automatically Blocking Extremist Videos

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
According to Reuters, YouTube and Facebook are deploying systems that automatically block and remove extremist videos. There's no word on how this is actually being done but, if they can hand out ten copyright takedown notices on a YouTube video before the damn thing is even done processing, I think they can handle something like this.

Some of the web’s biggest destinations for watching videos have quietly started using automation to remove extremist content from their sites, according to two people familiar with the process. The move is a major step forward for internet companies that are eager to eradicate violent propaganda from their sites and are under pressure to do so from governments around the world as attacks by extremists proliferate, from Syria to Belgium and the United States.
 
black-cat-lol-lolcats-tinfoilhat-nowords-humor-joke-photo-picture-funny.jpg
 
Maybe. But you know there is already proof that Facebook and Google are actually doing this right? Same with Twitter. Hard to call it tin foil when they are literally doing it lol

Yeah I've read both original "studies" it was the kind of stuff that only a complete hole in human intellect could believe.

The only concrete evidence came from an anonymous source in the case of Facebook. More anonymous source revelations for you: The Flat Earth Conspiracy: Is NASA Fooling The World? .
 
What's considered "Extremist" to them? Gotta love it when liberals attempt to ban free speech in the name of some pc bs.
 
Government's view of extremist includes anything that threatens the entrenched political elites and the people that love them.
 
Yeah I've read both original "studies" it was the kind of stuff that only a complete hole in human intellect could believe.

The only concrete evidence came from an anonymous source in the case of Facebook. More anonymous source revelations for you: The Flat Earth Conspiracy: Is NASA Fooling The World? .
You do realize what comes next when you de facto silence or "de-platform" a large segment of the population because nearly all the megaphones are essentially owned by an intellectually inbred community. And when they call you on it, the response is to play 'officer bar brady' or mock them.

The two last responses they have are to be attracted to groups that are as authoritarian and violent as the side you're defending and start responding in kind.
Trump-Supporter-Bloodied-Pearce-Twitter-575x431.jpg
, or

be attracted to groups that are even far more authoritarian and violent than your side with the willingness to use it. Those groups exist and they'd love that you are giving 10's of millions of people no where else to turn.
 
These videos were what changed the tide of the Syrian war. When people figured out 'Free Syrian Army' and the rest were the same old western and middle eastern mercenaries/al qaeda/ISIL/ISIS flavour of the month beheading jihadis, shit changed real quick.
Basically they want to sweep it under the rug or the next fake war will not ever begin.
 
Since you seem to know what he means, can you tell what he meant by free speech?
If the mods here on [H] wanted to come through and censor posts as they saw fit, that would be perfectly legal and OK. Facebook is doing the same on their platform.

Your free speech is protected from the government, if you're using someone else's services though, you have no such guarantee.
 
Your free speech is protected from everyone, the medium that you use on the other hand doesn't have to allow you. But a mod on [H] can't stop you from saying what you want.
 
NoAgenda, "the Best Podcast in the Universe" (now twice a week) pointed this out more than a few times ----> from Time Magazine's Mark Zuckerberg Person of the Year 2010 article

The door opened, and a distinguished-looking gray-haired man burst in — it's the only way to describe his entrance — trailed by a couple of deputies. He was both the oldest person in the room by 20 years and the only one wearing a suit. He was in the building, he explained with the delighted air of a man about to secure ironclad bragging rights forever, and he just had to stop in and introduce himself to Zuckerberg: Robert Mueller, director of the FBI

A company with the Director of the FBI wandering it's hallways is kind of just like THE GOVERNMENT!!.
 
Your free speech is protected from everyone, the medium that you use on the other hand doesn't have to allow you. But a mod on [H] can't stop you from saying what you want.
Lol, right. Go ahead and try it. Might be up for awhile, then deleted and BANhammer.

We are obviously talking about websites here with the OP article.

However, I could see needing some special rules needed when you have such a pervasive platform like Facebook and YouTube. Almost becomes public domain then.
 
Did you even read what I wrote? Seriously.

Lol, right. Go ahead and try it. Might be up for awhile, then deleted and BANhammer.

We are obviously talking about websites here with the OP article.

However, I could see needing some special rules needed when you have such a pervasive platform like Facebook and YouTube. Almost becomes public domain then.
 
Did you even read what I wrote? Seriously.
Yes, I did. Try writing more clearly next time. By "saying", did you mean in public? If so say that. Otherwise it sounds like you would/could be saying it in the forum (you know, since that is where we are right now).

Try rereading your own post with an unbiased eye.
 
Yes, I did. Try writing more clearly next time. By "saying", did you mean in public? If so say that. Otherwise it sounds like you would/could be saying it in the forum (you know, since that is where we are right now).

Try rereading your own post with an unbiased eye.

So you read the first part of my post, but ignored the rest of it.
 
I take it this doesn't actually apply in real life then.

You are misunderstanding "through any media". That does not mean "through anyone else's media". You would not expect to be able to print anything you want in the New York Times because the New York Times is not yours. You would not expect to air anything you want on Fox News because Fox News is not yours.

Rustynuts: I can't quite figure out who you're responding to. However, Facebook and YouTube are not public forums and mistaking them for such is a very silly thing to do.
 
You are misunderstanding "through any media". That does not mean "through anyone else's media". You would not expect to be able to print anything you want in the New York Times because the New York Times is not yours. You would not expect to air anything you want on Fox News because Fox News is not yours.

I just threw it out there to see what was said about it. No counterargument from me.
 
Hah, that's Cole Bartiromo. You might want to choose another martyr.
I bet you didn't even feel it brush your hair when my point flew over your head.

Facebook isn't the government. That can do whatever they want.
Love this argument. In a world where businesses are regulated with dictionary size documents, the govenrment has injected itself between a doctor or his patients, a shop owner can't refuse who he accepts as a customer and a pharmacist can't refuse to sell drugs that violate their beliefs, its hands off corporate oligopolies/monopolies suddenly? Do I believe someone suddenly wants to stand for corporate autonomy or do they just not someone to touch a racket that benefits them? Yeah they probably shouldn't be forced, but none of the formers should be forced either.

But I'm all for monopoly/oligopoly breakup, though, especially when they've proven to not be functioning in the public interest. To that end, free speach is not just a legal principle applied to government. Its a societal virtue. Anyone who deliberately opposes it is a pos that sucks farts out of dead pigs.
 
Back
Top