YouTube Redirecting Potential Extremist Recruits to Anti-Terrorist Content

R

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
6,943
Those wishing to view terrorist propaganda on YouTube are going to have a difficult time. In a blog post yesterday YouTube has announced they are going to use features from Jigsaw's Redirect Method on YouTube. With collaboration between Moonshot CVE and Jigsaw Tech plans on using machine learning to "dynamically update the search query terms" as time goes on.

A good step to hopefully sway the minds of some confused individuals out there. I hope Google is fairly transparent about the search terms it's re-directing. Because while technology like this would be great for the teenager thinking about joining ISIS, but could be quite dangerous if they start trying to push other agendas.

Today, YouTube is rolling out a feature using the model proven by the Redirect Method: when people search for certain keywords on YouTube, we will display a playlist of videos debunking violent extremist recruiting narratives.
 
MrTryfe said:
So all the millions of edgelords that flock to ISIS music on YouTube?
Click to expand...
Isis music, you say?

upload_2017-7-21_14-40-40.png


 
Free tibet > takes you to free one china

hope not but what else can they control?
 
Gotta love how this censorship is good, but it's bad that Twitter allows users to prevent racist comments (for example) from triggering a notification.
 
Madoc said:
Censorship and search manipulation are alive and well at YouTube. It's all fun and games while they're aiming it at terrorists (or "groups we don't like"), but it's just a matter of time before the scope broadens.
Click to expand...

Ends justify the means ?

........... or not ?
 
lcpiper said:
Ends justify the means ?

........... or not ?
Click to expand...
I think it's because the OP doesn't like ISIS (virtually nobody on either side of the aisle does), so censoring them is bad, but cesnoring racists or bigots in your own twitter feed is bad. It's a very [H] POV.
 
I think censorship is fundamentally wrong. But I also think there is more too it and that it's not just as simple as living by a simplistic ideal.

For instance, does the [H] use censorship in order to maintain a reasonably friendly space for discourse?, or to restrict people who would drag topics off into the wild? The answer is yes, they do, it's documented in the site's forum rules. Does this mean the [H] is as I said, "fundamentally wrong". I don't think so. Partly because it's their site and it's, correct me if I am mistaken, it's a commercial site. The forum is offered as a service but it has a purpose and the as such, the owners must have some control over what is going on because it can impact their business. There are practical reasons that the [H] must be allowed to exert influence and control over the content of their site. The [H] is not a public service, it's commercial. Furthermore the [H] has legal reasons that justify their control of user comment and usage of the [H]'s services.

There are many other justifiable reasons that censorship can't be a simplistic ideal. I don't think I am actually telling you something you don't already know so don't view my quote as opposed to your comment. It's just the flow of the conversation (y)
 
oROEchimaru said:
Free tibet > takes you to free one china

hope not but what else can they control?
Click to expand...

Even that would not necessarily be censorship if you get some "free one China" video suggestions first and then you get the real content that you were looking for. It's great to get both perspectives of an issue you're searching about (even if I've never come across a reasonable "one China" argument yet). It only becomes censorship if one of the points of view gets obliterated, instead of just being mixed with alternative viewpoints.

I'm not sure this will do much good. I don't expect that the guys go radical because the videos they watched had compelling arguments. I'd expect that they were already radicalized and that' why they started looking for those videos in the first place.

Hopefully it will not get harder to find episodes of "The Shazam!/Isis Hour".
 
They should also remove that viral video on YouTube of parents teaching their pre-teen kids how to masturbate with dildos and lube.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HoffY
like this
No form of censorship should ever be tolerated in a free society because it will inevitably lead to a slippery slope of liberties being lost. Just look at how many rights people have surrendered since 9/11.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HoffY
like this
Wouldn't this make some determined cunt even more upset? Getting subtly redirected to propaganda which is incompatible with the propaganda being searched would come off as obvious censorship and manipulation.

Besides, you can only preach to the choir.
 
lcpiper said:
I think censorship is fundamentally wrong. But I also think there is more too it and that it's not just as simple as living by a simplistic ideal.

For instance, does the [H] use censorship in order to maintain a reasonably friendly space for discourse?, or to restrict people who would drag topics off into the wild? The answer is yes, they do, it's documented in the site's forum rules. Does this mean the [H] is as I said, "fundamentally wrong". I don't think so. Partly because it's their site and it's, correct me if I am mistaken, it's a commercial site. The forum is offered as a service but it has a purpose and the as such, the owners must have some control over what is going on because it can impact their business. There are practical reasons that the [H] must be allowed to exert influence and control over the content of their site. The [H] is not a public service, it's commercial. Furthermore the [H] has legal reasons that justify their control of user comment and usage of the [H]'s services.

There are many other justifiable reasons that censorship can't be a simplistic ideal. I don't think I am actually telling you something you don't already know so don't view my quote as opposed to your comment. It's just the flow of the conversation (y)
Click to expand...
So how is that different than Twitter, whose censorship is disliked by the OP? It's their site, they can manage it as they wish, though as I recall, the objection was to tools provided to the end user. And given the number of trolls on twitter, if I was someone famous, I'd want to be able to filter out some of the negativity (e.g. you suck cock douche bag as a response to a tweet that said, I read this article about kittens)
 
lcpiper said:
Ends justify the means ?

........... or not ?
Click to expand...
Speaking solely for myself: no, it does not. This sort of insidiousness is based off of arbitrary standards which shift and flow with public opinion and the wishes of the shapers and molders of society. It is a tool for control.

Others have mentioned [H]'s policies. If they choose to forbid certain words or topics on their boards, that's fine with me: this is their place; I'm a guest here. But I don't believe they actually change the wording of my posts -- if they disapprove of a post, they'll delete it. Fair enough, IMO. But what we're talking about here is redirecting search results, or outright blacklisting them. This isn't interference with my communications, but my personal activities on the Net: not what I'm saying to others, but what I'm doing privately on my own.

IMO, this is all about control: who controls what you can interact with on the Web. Increasingly, that control is being stripped away. This does not make for a very rosy picture of the future for the Internet... or for us.
 
I bet they're having a big meet over at Terrorist Central and the guy at the dais is somberly saying, "checkmate people, it's all over, we had a good run but.....".
 
nilepez said:
So how is that different than Twitter, whose censorship is disliked by the OP? It's their site, they can manage it as they wish, though as I recall, the objection was to tools provided to the end user. And given the number of trolls on twitter, if I was someone famous, I'd want to be able to filter out some of the negativity (e.g. you suck cock douche bag as a response to a tweet that said, I read this article about kittens)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, I didn't address Twitter. But I suppose there is a difference between expressing ideas or support for others, and using Twitter as a means of communications and recruitment for, if I understand correctly, is an international criminal activity.

Of course if it was me, I'd just ask Twitter to place all that stuff in a single "area", move all new posts that fit the right criteria into that area as the comments are made. You want Nazi Facists stuff, go to that area, ISIS another, etc. Just automajicly move everything to the little shit-bucket it belongs in, for ease of access.

Neatness counts.
 
Madoc said:
Speaking solely for myself: no, it does not. This sort of insidiousness is based off of arbitrary standards which shift and flow with public opinion and the wishes of the shapers and molders of society. It is a tool for control.

Others have mentioned [H]'s policies. If they choose to forbid certain words or topics on their boards, that's fine with me: this is their place; I'm a guest here. But I don't believe they actually change the wording of my posts -- if they disapprove of a post, they'll delete it. Fair enough, IMO. But what we're talking about here is redirecting search results, or outright blacklisting them. This isn't interference with my communications, but my personal activities on the Net: not what I'm saying to others, but what I'm doing privately on my own.

IMO, this is all about control: who controls what you can interact with on the Web. Increasingly, that control is being stripped away. This does not make for a very rosy picture of the future for the Internet... or for us.
Click to expand...


You are correct, we have been drifting off the mark here. This really wasn't about censorship of people's comments but instead about censorship of what people can view, it's essentially restricting access correct?

But I am not against all forms of control, not as a rule. For instance, if there is something illegal on the internet, usually it gets taken down, cause it's illegal. What is legal and illegal is a different subject. At the moment I just want to address this method of control.

Now in the US, a person can be arrested if found violating the law. I think this is a pretty obvious form of control. But although the police have the power to arrest, it all depends on what is going on, what someone is doing that qualifies and allows for arresting a citizen.

So now we have Twitter or any ISP, whatever, who is redirecting specific searches for specific content. Content that has been classified as illegal, whether criminally illegal or terms of service "illegal". And they are exerting control over this content and activity.

I'm thinking that as long as the activity or the content is illegal or violates the TOS for the site, then this isn't such a bad thing. I'm not sure that "redirection" is the best solution cause it leaves some people feeling like they are being manipulated, cause they pretty much are being manipulated.

Perhaps a better solution is to "flag" questionable search terms, then filter the content of the returns, any that meet the automatic content filters get "Blocked pending content review", those that don't trip the filters or were judged OK by a previous review are displayed as requested.

But this is just my thinking on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top