YouTube Statement on Fighting Online Terror Content

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
52,960
YouTube has updated its blog on its commitment to fight terror content online. YouTube is claiming that its machine learning capabilities has allowed it to remove 75% of the offending content before ever being flagged by a human being, which is very impressive to say the least. It went on to say that the machine learning process is also more accurate than humans when identifying the content in question.

A little over a month ago, we told you about the four new steps we’re taking to combat terrorist content on YouTube: better detection and faster removal driven by machine learning, more experts to alert us to content that needs review, tougher standards for videos that are controversial but do not violate our policies, and more work in the counter-terrorism space.

Where the program starts to sound a bit frail, is when "hate speech" is lumped in with "violent extremism" as part of the program's target.

Tougher standards: We’ll soon be applying tougher treatment to videos that aren’t illegal but have been flagged by users as potential violations of our policies on hate speech and violent extremism. If we find that these videos don’t violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes. We’ll begin to roll this new treatment out to videos on desktop versions of YouTube in the coming weeks, and will bring it to mobile experiences soon thereafter. These new approaches entail significant new internal tools and processes, and will take time to fully implement.

I think we have all seen current examples of YouTube videos being removed for political reasons, rather than actually being "hate speech." All that said, YouTube is not a governmental entity, and can do whatever the hell it wants to, at least until it is regulated as a utility.
 

BreezeDM

Gawd
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
610
I can get rid of 100% of the videos with my algorithm, but it also removes 100% of the good videos. Flagging 75% of the videos itself is not impressive if the false positive rate is high.
 

SomeoneElse

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,941
This is the beginning of censorship.... I get the whole hate speech thing but where is the line drawn? Also where does it start to infringe on the 1st Amendment. This is a very slippery slope one i don't want to see traversed. Soon they are going to block pro gun channels because some hack of a person doesn't like to see "violence".....
 

PeaKr

Gawd
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
894
Its time for a P2P video streaming service, one with a simple voting system to flag/filter content for grownups who don't require google to make their decisions for them.
 

Daarken

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
103
All of the social media platforms are going this route.
For example, Jessie James was unverified on twitter yesterday for undisclosed reasons.
 

mavrocket

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
1,099
Its time for a P2P video streaming service, one with a simple voting system to flag/filter content for grownups who don't require google to make their decisions for them.

We could have this with a Limewire like client that also had built in AV and Anti-Malware, but you'd have to make sure it wasn't used for what Limewire ended up being used for when it was still around...
 

nvgrim

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
1,747
This is the beginning of censorship.... I get the whole hate speech thing but where is the line drawn? Also where does it start to infringe on the 1st Amendment. This is a very slippery slope one i don't want to see traversed. Soon they are going to block pro gun channels because some hack of a person doesn't like to see "violence".....
Its their own website, they can allow whatever that want on there and remove whatever. They are not the government, so they are not infringing on anyone's first amendment rights. Youtube doesn't owe anyone anything and if they dont like the rules then dont use the site.
 

katanaD

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
1,987
Its their own website, they can allow whatever that want on there and remove whatever. They are not the government, so they are not infringing on anyone's first amendment rights. Youtube doesn't owe anyone anything and if they dont like the rules then dont use the site.


LOL.. i was literally in the middle of saying the same thing when your post poped up
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,879
This is the beginning of censorship.... I get the whole hate speech thing but where is the line drawn? Also where does it start to infringe on the 1st Amendment. This is a very slippery slope one i don't want to see traversed. Soon they are going to block pro gun channels because some hack of a person doesn't like to see "violence".....

*Sigh.* The 1st Amendment ONLY applies to government. Youtube is a PRIVATE entity and is NOT bound by the 1st Amendment. Why do people keep getting this shit confused? Its basic stuff that is taught in middle school.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,879
I'm a free speech absolutist and this scares the hell out of me.

I agree with this, to a point. I understand some level of moderation. Its the internet people are going to be vile, disgusting, assholes and some of that has to go. The problem is, Youtube cannot be trusted to leave it at things most people can agree deserve paying attention to.
 

mavrocket

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
1,099
Its their own website, they can allow whatever that want on there and remove whatever. They are not the government, so they are not infringing on anyone's first amendment rights. Youtube doesn't owe anyone anything and if they dont like the rules then dont use the site.

LOL.. i was literally in the middle of saying the same thing when your post poped up

*Sigh.* The 1st Amendment ONLY applies to government. Youtube is a PRIVATE entity and is NOT bound by the 1st Amendment. Why do people keep getting this shit confused? Its basic stuff that is taught in middle school.

While you all are absolutely correct that Google is not infringing on anyone's first amendment rights as the government would be considered to be infringing on anyone's first amendment rights, as one of the world's largest purveyors of online video content, they are absolutely infringing on the rights of individuals to express themselves IAW the first amendment. Alphabet via Google via Youtube is much more powerful than the US or any world government in it's ability to stifle or prevent speech in this regard.

While not legally correct, I don't think any of the posters above were that far off base.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,879
While you all are absolutely correct that Google is not infringing on anyone's first amendment rights as the government would be considered to be infringing on anyone's first amendment rights, as one of the world's largest purveyors of online video content, they are absolutely infringing on the rights of individuals to express themselves IAW the first amendment. Alphabet via Google via Youtube is much more powerful than the US or any world government in it's ability to stifle or prevent speech in this regard.

It is not wrong to take the position that the other posters did above, just not legally correct.

There is a huge difference between free speech in the moral or ethical sense and free speech in the legal sense. In the legal definition of the term, Google, Youtube, Alphabet, whatever are not violating anyone's rights by what they are doing. In the moral or ethical sense of the term there is definitely an argument to be made against the extremes they will undoubtedly go to.
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,460
Alphabet via Google via Youtube is much more powerful than the US or any world government in it's ability to stifle or prevent speech in this regard..

No they aren't. They cant throw you in jail and ruin your life. All they can do is ruin their platform and open the way for a new one to take over...
 

yourgrandma

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
1,389
" tougher standards for videos that are controversial but do not violate our policies." What a load of BS, they themselves promote 'controversial' agenda spewing garbage all the time.

Its their own website, they can allow whatever that want on there and remove whatever. They are not the government, so they are not infringing on anyone's first amendment rights. Youtube doesn't owe anyone anything and if they dont like the rules then dont use the site.
So what about when they start being able to control a very large amount of the communication that happens on this planet and they abuse that power? Whether or not it's government or a 'private entity' does it matter? I think we could start to see backlash happening in real life instead of just something as silly as 'online terrorism'
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,460
Yes they are.

State your reasons. Without a basis your argument is invalid.

The government can have you killed (ours cant because of our laws, but if that changed they could and other govs do) for speaking the wrong words. Google cannot legally do that. Seems like governments have more ability to restrict you than a company.

Whats the worst thing that can happen if they over moderate the content on YouTube? People stop using it and someone else comes up with the next version that doesnt have that same moderation and the cycle starts all over again...
 

katanaD

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Messages
1,987
as one of the world's largest purveyors of online video content, they are absolutely infringing on the rights of individuals to express themselves IAW the first amendment


so, its their size that suddenly makes them beholden to higher ideals?

Every website, including this one, has a TOS that one must agree to and if they violate it, they can be banned or have their post removed. and i applaud and visit those that enforce such to keep things, at least somewhat civil, LOL

even whitehouse.gov has a TOS you must follow
 

Bandalo

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
2,660
" tougher standards for videos that are controversial but do not violate our policies." What a load of BS, they themselves promote 'controversial' agenda spewing garbage all the time.


So what about when they start being able to control a very large amount of the communication that happens on this planet and they abuse that power? Whether or not it's government or a 'private entity' does it matter? I think we could start to see backlash happening in real life instead of just something as silly as 'online terrorism'

They own the site, and they're not violating any laws. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.

The fact that it's a private entity vs the government is EXACTLY the issue. A private entity does not have to support your rights, the government does.

Take an example of pornography. It's totally legal, and yet not posted on YouTube. Are they violating the law by choosing not to post porn? No, of course not, they're owners of the site and they can post what content they want.

What if it was a site dedicated to cat videos. And you posted a dog video. Dog videos are legal. Why can't you post it?
 

yourgrandma

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
1,389
They own the site, and they're not violating any laws. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.

The fact that it's a private entity vs the government is EXACTLY the issue. A private entity does not have to support your rights, the government does.

Take an example of pornography. It's totally legal, and yet not posted on YouTube. Are they violating the law by choosing not to post porn? No, of course not, they're owners of the site and they can post what content they want.

What if it was a site dedicated to cat videos. And you posted a dog video. Dog videos are legal. Why can't you post it?
If anything i fully expect no government intervention whatever google decides on who or what it decides to silence or promote. My comment was less about government enforcement and more about what is becoming a reality as far as control and power google posses.

'Just go else where' is almost a joke at this point, the majority of people now rely on google services to gather information or to be seen or heard whether you're a business or individual. If you view laws as the only standard set for all morals and what is 'right' then i guess there really isn't much else to say.
 
Last edited:

Bandalo

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
2,660
If anything i fully expect no government intervention whatever google decides on who or what it decides to silence or promote. My comment was less about government enforcement and more about what is becoming a reality as far as control and power google posses.

'Just go else where' is almost a joke at this point, the majority of people now rely on google services to gather information or to seen or heard whether you're a business or individual. If you view laws as the only standard set for all morals and what is 'right' then i guess there really isn't much else to say.

Laws should be written based on morals. Companies operate based on profit, and they'll follow laws as narrowly as possible to maximize their profits. Government SHOULD write laws to keep companies under control and prevent the abuse of the "little guy" to keep things fair for everyone.

"Just go elsewhere" is where government regulation comes into play. Google is huge, but there are other services out there for search engines that are good. They may not be what you LIKE, but they're good enough that Google doesn't really have a monopoly. Same with video sharing and other social media sites. Instagram, FaceBook, Twitter, etc, etc...all of those will let you share your videos. All of them will have similar policies on "offensive content".
 

rezerekted

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
3,043
Doesn't matter if it in their right to do so or not, most people do not like book burners. I'm all for moving to an alternative video site that does not practice censorship.
 

GlowingGhoul

Whines about Whiners
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
445
Yes, Alphabet is not a government entity and therefore can set whatever terms they like.

HOWEVER, they publically take the position that they are apolitical and nonpartisan in order to attract advertisers. This is clearly not the case, and as we see here, a textbook example of deception.

"We're going to eliminate terrorist content on YouTube" -

Oh, ok, that sounds like a good idea.

"And of course, 'hate speech" can lead to terrorism, so that will be banned as well"

Uh, who defines what 'hate speech' is? Is "Illegal aliens should be deported in accordance with the law?" hate speech? Is "I believe marriage is defined as...." hate speech?

"No, don't be ridiculous, we wouldn't call that 'hate speech'. We'd call it extremism and supremacy."

What?

"Here's a copy of our new policy quarantining extremism and supremacy content"

Why are you doing this?

"Because media exerts a powerful influence on people, and we must protect them from dangerous ideas." Love, YouTube.
 

zkostik

Gawd
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
929
well say goodbye to any "conservative" or NON progressive content on Youtube. What a ball of crap!

Totally agree with you but their site their rules. Someone else ought to start a FreeTube or something like that when they don't censor too much content (maybe something like this will bite in the ass with all the lawsuit happy sensitive folks around).
 

nvgrim

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
1,747
Totally agree with you but their site their rules. Someone else ought to start a FreeTube or something like that when they don't censor too much content (maybe something like this will bite in the ass with all the lawsuit happy sensitive folks around).
Liveleak.com
 

SomeoneElse

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,941
*Sigh.* The 1st Amendment ONLY applies to government. Youtube is a PRIVATE entity and is NOT bound by the 1st Amendment. Why do people keep getting this shit confused? Its basic stuff that is taught in middle school.
I surely hope this is sarcasm......1st Amendment is not only bound to government.....I can tell you to F off and you can't sue me becuase I told you to F- Off. That't the first amendment at it purest state.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
Read the second paragraph and tell me where Anyone can say anything against someone and not be held accountable? Slander, Libel, all protections under the first amendment......thats where the question of what is the 1st amendment line falls. period.
According to the law its NOT the ONLY thing that it protects......Private people/ entities still have to fall under the same laws.....other wise there is not protection against each other....
 

jardows

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
2,149
Well shit...50% of what I say is probably hate speech by *someones* definition. Including this post...
I am now triggered. Discussions regarding fecal matter trigger me, and I'm offended. Oh crap, I just discussed fecal matter and triggered myself. Wait, what word did I just use? Self-triggered again! :eek: AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! :bigtears:
 

vegeta535

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
8,517
State your reasons. Without a basis your argument is invalid.

The government can have you killed (ours cant because of our laws, but if that changed they could and other govs do) for speaking the wrong words. Google cannot legally do that. Seems like governments have more ability to restrict you than a company.

Whats the worst thing that can happen if they over moderate the content on YouTube? People stop using it and someone else comes up with the next version that doesnt have that same moderation and the cycle starts all over again...
You are so naive. Our government or any government can and will have you killed if they deem it beneficiary. Companies as big as Google and Facebook can and will use their position to push their agenda. Having such pockets as deep as them allows them to skirt the law as they seem fit.
 

Bandalo

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
2,660
Totally agree with you but their site their rules. Someone else ought to start a FreeTube or something like that when they don't censor too much content (maybe something like this will bite in the ass with all the lawsuit happy sensitive folks around).

Sure...and "FreeTube" needs money to operate. So they have to sell ads. And those advertisers say, "hey we don't like this particular type of video, delete it or we'll cut our advertising to you". Now FreeTube is "censoring" their videos to please their advertisers or else they won't exist.
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
14,863
Yeah, certain legitimate political opinions will get squashed. Especially if user reports influence the learning algorithm.

"We aren't biased, it was the machines that decided to remove it."

So can we influence the machine learning program to remove all the retarded crap on eBay? I'm not talking political stuff, just all the ultra crappy crap that idiots post on there?
 

liveload

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
193
The Bill of Rights is NOT additive. It is subtractive. It doesn't grant a right, which incidentally humans naturally come with. It takes away the ability of Government to infringe upon that right, because at the end of the day;

"a Government is a group of people usually, notably ungoverned" - Capt M Reynolds
 

nvgrim

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
1,747
I surely hope this is sarcasm......1st Amendment is not only bound to government.....I can tell you to F off and you can't sue me becuase I told you to F- Off. That't the first amendment at it purest state.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
Read the second paragraph and tell me where Anyone can say anything against someone and not be held accountable? Slander, Libel, all protections under the first amendment......thats where the question of what is the 1st amendment line falls. period.
According to the law its NOT the ONLY thing that it protects......Private people/ entities still have to fall under the same laws.....other wise there is not protection against each other....
Yeah but if you were in my house telling me to fuck off i would tell you to leave and dont come back, because its my house and i own it and if you dont like it then tough shit. Same analogy with google/youtube not wanting certain types of videos on their site.
 

liveload

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
193
Yeah but if you were in my house telling me to fuck off i would tell you to leave and dont come back, because its my house and i own it and if you dont like it then tough shit. Same analogy with google/youtube not wanting certain types of videos on their site.

You can *tell* him to leave. You can't force him or that becomes assault, etc. Besides, you don't actually own your home/land. You can be on it and use it as long as you pay taxes to the government and they don't need it for their own purposes.
 

Bandalo

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
2,660
You can *tell* him to leave. You can't force him or that becomes assault, etc. Besides, you don't actually own your home/land. You can be on it and use it as long as you pay taxes to the government and they don't need it for their own purposes.

You can tell him to leave, and if he doesn't, you can call the police (the local government reps) and they'll MAKE him leave, and it won't be a violation of his 1st Amendment rights.

And regarding land use and the government, that's been true in every country since the beginning of time, so I'm not sure what your point is there.
 
Top