Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Youtube Google

Google Announces New Measures To Fight Extremist YouTube Videos (cnet.com) 286

An anonymous reader quotes CNET: YouTube will take new steps to combat extremist- and terrorist-related videos, parent company Google said Sunday. "While we and others have worked for years to identify and remove content that violates our policies, the uncomfortable truth is that we, as an industry, must acknowledge that more needs to be done. Now," Kent Walker, Google's general counsel, said in an op-ed column in the London-based Financial Times.
Here's CNET's summary of the four new measure Google is implementing:
  • Use "more engineering resources to apply our most advanced machine learning research to train new 'content classifiers' to help us more quickly identify and remove such content."
  • Expand YouTube's Trusted Flagger program by adding 50 independent, "expert" non-governmental organizations to the 63 groups already part of it. Google will offer grants to fund the groups.
  • Take a "tougher stance on videos that do not clearly violate our policies -- for example, videos that contain inflammatory religious or supremacist content." Such videos will "appear behind a warning" and will not be "monetized, recommended or eligible for comments or user endorsements."
  • Expand YouTube's efforts in counter-radicalization. "We are working with Jigsaw to implement the 'redirect method' more broadly. ... This promising approach harnesses the power of targeted online advertising to reach potential Isis recruits, and redirects them towards anti-terrorist videos that can change their minds about joining."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Announces New Measures To Fight Extremist YouTube Videos

Comments Filter:
  • by Zombie Ryushu ( 803103 ) on Sunday June 18, 2017 @04:41PM (#54643619)

    What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. They are Secular Humanist Political commentators and Journalists who report on current events and extremists in the news. They are Agnostic Atheists who are critical of religion, and want to hold Government accountable.

    • by epyT-R ( 613989 ) on Sunday June 18, 2017 @05:08PM (#54643679)

      They will be labeled as racist/sexist/homophobic whatever-nazis. When logical argumentation becomes 'hate speech', it's game over for the enlightenment.

      • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Sunday June 18, 2017 @05:41PM (#54643807)

        They will be labeled as racist/sexist/homophobic whatever-nazis. When logical argumentation becomes 'hate speech', it's game over for the enlightenment.

        Or MGTOW or feminist videos? Gun control versus second amendment affecionados. Or Bill Maher, and whoever hates him? A lot of these folk have an intense hatred towards each other. Be it liberal, or conservative.

        We live in a world where some folks want a whole lot of speech muzzled, and the pro muzzlers are more than happy to call their antagonists hate speech.

        They better have their policies very tightly defined, because it becomes a muzzling of controversy otherwise.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Considering that being an ISIS recruitment platform is not a viable business model, I'm not sure what the alternative is. They seem to be trying really hard to avoid getting involved in politics.

          The bigger problem they have with censorship is bogus copyright infringement claims and malicious reporting.

          • Considering that being an ISIS recruitment platform is not a viable business model, I'm not sure what the alternative is. They seem to be trying really hard to avoid getting involved in politics.

            The bigger problem they have with censorship is bogus copyright infringement claims and malicious reporting.

            It's a big place though, and I've seen a lot of political videos. Young Turks is getting pretty big, Pakman is middling. A lot of Bill Maher, Fox News, Breitbart, and others.

            The copyright infringement part is a problem, with some people commenting on other people's videos, and often a Takedown notice gets pitted against fair use doctrine.

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Sure, what I mean is that their rules generally try to avoid making any political judgements. It's only stuff like incitement to violence against individuals or groups, or glorification of murder that they are looking to block.

              Well, some people were upset that they can't monetize their homophobia etc. but that's not even YouTube, it's the advertisers.

            • Young Turks is getting pretty big,

              Sponsored by and supported by Google now, so ... yeah... amazing that the genocide deniers in this case are not just ok to stream... ok to support too

              These guys literally did not know that the group they named themselves after committed a genocide, and instead of owning up to the mistake, they doubled down and denied that there was a genocide at all. Complete scumbag racists.

        • by lgw ( 121541 )

          Google wants a muzzling of controversy! Not from political agenda, but simple short-sighted greed: advertisers don't like their ads to appear next to anything controversial.

          But, of course, it's the controversy that gets the page views. With no controversy (and no porn), only cat videos will remain, and that's a small portion of YouTube's traffic. It's an idea so stupid only an MBA could have thought of it.

    • Agnostic Atheists

      I like that - "Agnostic Atheist". It's someone who doesn't believe in God but doesn't want to be lumped in with douchenozzles like Richard Dawkins. Basically, it's "I don't know if there's a god, but prolly not, but just in case, you never know."

      What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman,

      What about them? I don't see how these Google measures are going to affect them.

      • by epyT-R ( 613989 ) on Sunday June 18, 2017 @05:53PM (#54643871)

        An atheist is someone who does not have a belief in deities. It offers no justification. An agnostic atheist does not believe due to lack of evidence. This has nothing to do with Dawkins except that he probably is one.

        Dawkins rightfully criticizes islam for its intolerant doctrines, esp towards women, gays, and non-believers. This should not surprise you as he has always been quite vocal and critical towards irrational belief systems. The funny thing is, if this was prior to ~2004, you'd probably be on board with him. At some point, the left will have to deal with this schizophrenic conflict between what used to be called 'liberal values' and islam. I just hope it's not at the expense of the former.

        • . At some point, the left will have to deal with this schizophrenic conflict between what used to be called 'liberal values' and islam.

          It's not as hard as you think, and it's not a schizophrenic conflict. It's garden variety human hatred. There's Islam, and then there's the hateful cult that justifies itself in its name. Just as there's Christianity, and then there's the hateful cult that justifies itself in its name. Hateful atheists will just find other ways to justify themselves.

          As a one-time seminar

          • by epyT-R ( 613989 ) on Sunday June 18, 2017 @09:04PM (#54644541)

            Sounds like a no true scotsman fallacy. Who decides what is 'abuse' of 'sacred' texts when the whole premise is based on faith and subjective interpretation? This applies to any religion, not just islam. From the perspective of islamic fundamentalists, the watered down 'moderate' interpretation you defend is blasphemy (or perhaps 'hate speech' towards allah and mohammed if you like). The fact this whole conflict is based on fantastical, improvable beliefs is why religion receives criticism in the first place.

            Dawkins criticizes the whole religious 'stack', not just islam. He just ran into trouble with progressives because they had placed muslims on the protected caste list and he refused to give the religion a free pass.

            • by bongey ( 974911 )
              The left just takes the opposite opinion of anyone on the right. Liberals have no problem bashing conservatives over Christianity all day long, but suddenly for Islam they have become a defender of religious freedom. It has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with being irrationally the opposite of everything your political opponent thinks.
          • by goose-incarnated ( 1145029 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:15AM (#54645653) Journal

            . At some point, the left will have to deal with this schizophrenic conflict between what used to be called 'liberal values' and islam.

            It's not as hard as you think, and it's not a schizophrenic conflict. It's garden variety human hatred. There's Islam, and then there's the hateful cult that justifies itself in its name.

            Damn big cult, seeing as more than 2/3 of the Islamic population support Sharia Law [pewresearch.org] ...

            Stoning gays for being gay. How very progressive.

            The problem is you are working under the mistaken belief that the Islamic regressives are a small minority of the Islamic population. They are not. They are the clear majority.

        • by mvdwege ( 243851 )

          No. The "Left", as you call it, or as I call it: people with fucking decency, disowned Dawkins because he used Islamophobia to chastise Western women to shut up about sexism and misogyny. That makes him a sexist asshole. And depending on how much he conflates Islam with 'looking Arabic' possibly a racist asshole too.

          I am very sorry for you, but reality is not obliged to defer to your feelings, snowflake.

    • will this list include the right wing white racicalized christian groups?
      • Of course it will. But it won't include left wing white radicalized communist groups. So don't worry, you can keep enjoying the antifa, bamn, alf, elf, sea shepard, and all those other violent extremist groups telling people to assault those who don't follow their political ideology.

    • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) on Sunday June 18, 2017 @05:17PM (#54643709)

      Well, by liberal Silicon Valley rules, it will work like this:

      If they criticize Christianity, then it's free speech

      If they criticize Islam, then it's racism and hate speech.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        They are specifically taking about tackling videos that demonise Christians, in order to radicalize people against them. Islamists like to portray their struggle as a holy war.

      • by labnet ( 457441 ) on Sunday June 18, 2017 @08:37PM (#54644455)

        Well, by liberal Silicon Valley rules, it will work like this:

        If they criticize Christianity, then it's free speech

        If they criticize Islam, then it's racism and hate speech.

        Why does the far left interpret disagreement as hate?
        I don't think gay marriage is a good thing for society: but I don't hate gay people who hold that opinion?

        • by satsuke ( 263225 ) on Sunday June 18, 2017 @11:18PM (#54645047)

          You got that completely wrong, it's not criticism of Christianity that is seen as hate speech by the left, it's extremist hate speech that is hate speech.

          Your confusion is from the fact that right wingers seem to lump all muslims into a homogeneous group and ties them with extremists, when they are not one group, but hundreds of smaller groups, in the same way Christian sects are splintered among progressive and conservative sects, including groups that advocate violence.

          Progressives just label the terrorist like elements of both as terrorist, both Christian and Muslim (and other religions / groups).

    • Also nice to see somebody else on /. notice them :). Youtube is mostly after the groups advocating violence and racism since those tend to be what really scares the bejeebees out of advertisers.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Nonsense - you're either an agnostic or an atheist. Agnostics say that they don't know for sure one way or another whether god exists - atheists say god doesn't exist. Which is why Richard Dawkins isn't really an atheist - he's "almost certain." - which makes him a nervous agnostic fence-sitter publicity hound who's trying to have it both ways so that if god does exist, hopefully god won't be as pissed off with him as with the real atheists.
      • by Calydor ( 739835 )

        So, if I think there may be some truth to the theory that our universe is a simulation, and take it a step further to say we're some super-advanced civilization's version of The Sims - are the players not effectively equal to gods?

        'Atheist' is the closest descriptor you have to 'I believe in science', being convinced the truth lies with the big bang, evolution etc. - yet the agnostic can't rule out some kind of higher power that may nudge things in specific directions without getting as involved as gods ten

        • Except your theory that we're just a simulation has zero science behind it, just "sciency opinions" from credulous scientists who want it to be true. It's actually a religious belief, because we have to accept it on faith, because if it were true we would have no way to prove it. Atheists don't take such things on faith.
          • Except your theory that we're just a simulation has zero science behind it

            It's just logic. The argument goes like this: There appears to be no reason that a universe could not be simulated to an arbitrary level of detail. In an infinite universe, everything than can be done will be done, so a universe will eventually be simulated. Moreover, we have already created numerous incredibly crude simulators, and we're clearly going to make better ones, so eventually we will simulate a universe.

            Next, observe that precisely the same logic applies inside a simulated universe. So any simu

            • Logic has been used to prove lots of things, like bees not being able to fly. That heavier things fall faster. That the earth is the center of the universe.

              Proof is what counts. A theory that is not possible to be tested is worse than useless - it's a diversion, a waste of time.

              BTW - it's not possible. There is absolutely no evidence, and it is the person who makes the extraordinary claim who has the burden of proof. What you have is an unsupported belief - same as any other religious belief.

              • Logic has been used to prove lots of things, like bees not being able to fly.

                Only because the logic has been based on erroneous assumptions. The thing about this particular argument is that it contains very few assumptions. Which ones would you challenge?

                Proof is what counts.

                No theory can be proven. Only disproven.

                A theory that is not possible to be tested is worse than useless - it's a diversion, a waste of time.

                It's not entirely certain that this theory cannot be tested. It's not obvious that it can, but that doesn't mean it cannot. Also, humans engage in lots of diversions, and waste a lot of time. I'll bet you do, too. Why is this diversion bad, and yours good?

                BTW - it's not possible

                That's an extraordinary claim, as clai

          • by chihowa ( 366380 )

            Sorry to burst your bubble, but stating that there absolutely is no god without any quantifiable evidence to back that statement up is "taking such things on faith". God isn't testable and so has nothing to do with science. Totally orthogonal concepts.

        • by chihowa ( 366380 )

          'Atheist' is the closest descriptor you have to 'I believe in science', being convinced the truth lies with the big bang, evolution etc. - yet the agnostic can't rule out some kind of higher power that may nudge things in specific directions without getting as involved as gods tend to do in established religions. They don't necessarily invalidate each other.

          Unless there is repeatable, quantifiable evidence that god does not exist. atheism is just as unscientific as theism. Since metaphysics, by definition, is distinct from the observable universe, atheism requires you to base your beliefs on faith just as much as theism does. Suspension of belief until evidence is found is the most rational approach, but expecting evidence of the metaphysical to actually be found isn't very rational. Replacing that old time religion with a goofy science-as-religion where you "

        • by lgw ( 121541 )

          'Atheist' is the closest descriptor you have to 'I believe in science',

          That's a very childish view. Science and religion are largely orthogonal. Science makes statements about how the world is, religion makes statements about how to be in the world.

          Only if you're a simple-minded literalist do you think the creation stories and whatnot are there as history. Most people understand they're there as archetypical stories about how to live.

          You can both believe in the Big Bang, and believe e.g. in the moral lesson of the story of Cain and Abel (if your brother is sacrificing for

    • What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman, etc. They are Secular Humanist Political commentators and Journalists who report on current events and extremists in the news. They are Agnostic Atheists who are critical of religion, and want to hold Government accountable.

      I fully support their right to post videos on their own website. Youtube is whatever youtube wants it to be and that does not include unrestricted speech.

    • Christopher Hitchens is famous for his "Hitchslaps". These are brutal, frank, and effective counter-arguments, usually in debates. But he dismisses Christianity and Muslims as the "quacks" they are

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

       

    • Every single Atheist and Skeptic channel is going to get flagged and banned under this program.

  • I'd be happy if they flagged all the shit like the flat-earth videos, the "spirit science" bullshit, and all the rest of the mystical anti-science garbage that pollutes Youtube like a punchbowl full of turds.

  • Youtube has no credibility on important news topics and critical content covered by the libertarians-paleoconservatives trying to stem various forms of genocide. The ideological libertarians of classical liberalism, not the apologist hijackers of crony capitalists.
  • Ah /. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GrahamJ ( 241784 ) on Sunday June 18, 2017 @05:27PM (#54643749)

    Pretty much every comment here is "They'll remove things they shouldn't!" or "They won't remove things they should!"

    Maybe we should let them actually do something before deciding if they're doing it wrong or not.

    Personally I'd rather err on the side of removing content that incites violence.

    • I think this is largely due to the recent "Ad Apocalypse" where a large number of channels lost they're ad's and funding.

      China Uncensored is one example, video's being taken down because some random word that's a part of a video game title is another, then there's all the dmca take downs that are very hard to appeal against.

      Say something someone doesn't like and suddenly it's considered "hate speech"
      The right to free speech also means the right to be offended and that's the problem, a lot of it is subjectiv

      • I think this is largely due to the recent "Ad Apocalypse" where a large number of channels lost they're ad's and funding.

        China Uncensored is one example, video's being taken down because some random word that's a part of a video game title is another, then there's all the dmca take downs that are very hard to appeal against.

        You seem to be talking about two different things as though they're one.

        DMCA takedowns apply to material that is alleged to infringe someone's copyrights. When an online provider receives a takedown, they are legally obliged to take the content down. DMCA takedowns aren't at all hard to "appeal against"; you just file a counter-notice and the material goes back up. Then, if you actually infringed their copyrights, the owner of the material sues you. They can do this because in the counter-notice you have

      • Youtube are just reacting to the demands of advertisers. Advertisers are very protective of their brand associations - they don't want their ad appearing right before someone launches off on a profanity-laden rant, or be seen implicitly endorsing a very fringe political view by advertising next to it.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Who determines what extremism is?
    Kathy Griffith's "beheading" of Trump anyone?
    How about that Broadway play that depicts assassination of the President in the manner of Julius Caesar?
    What about those on the left that call for killing all republicans or all conservatives?

    Will Google and the other companies stop those videos?
    When does this enter into the area of preventing free speech?

    Don't censor at all, and if you feel you have to censor, then make sure you censor EVERYONE, thus ensuring the demise of your p

  • Flagged. (Score:4, Informative)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Sunday June 18, 2017 @08:35PM (#54644437) Homepage Journal

    The worst common offending extremist videos are youtube approved sponsors, and they get pushed to the trending page.

    The Young Turks has videos calling out for death for conservatives and Trump, with extreme foul language, that would never pass for FCC standards. And youtube puts them on the trending page all the time.

    If TYT can call for the death of people, and yet still be approved because its leftist shock journalism, their 63 current content groups are just political groups censoring conservatives.

    Other conservative FCC quality videos that actually AIR ON THE RADIO are removed, blocked, and censored because of these 63 and youtube censors.

    Everyone knows whats going on, lets not even try to pretend that google doesn't have an agenda to fight conservatism.

    • Where is a link to one of their videos calling for the death of someone? I don't watch their channel but every few months a single video from them will show up as recommended. While they are pretty strange I have not seen them call for someone to be killed.

      Overall I hate this whole right vs left thing because I think ideas get classified as one or another and then discarded on that basis instead of sitting down and having a rational discussion. Sometimes the right is correct, something the left is correct,

  • Not really hoping for any funny comments, but there is great room for insight on this topic, and I wasn't able to detect much based on such mods or my keyword searches. Unfortunately, I feel lacking in motivation on behalf of what is left of Slashdot. I thought I had a couple of minutes to spare, but the pending task was completed so my time priorities have been rearranged and I should leave soon. So...

    The analysis of the "Comment Subject:" is entirely intuitively obvious starting from the sig below, but in

  • Does it involve "arresting extremists"?

    I understand you are not allowed access to computers in jail. Kind of makes it hard to create a throw-away account and post an extremist video.

    By the way, where are all these extremists coming from; is there a factory somewhere? Maybe we can just shut that down...

  • Will they censor videos supporting the military invasion of other countries? Will they censor videos supporting groups of proud people who make night raids and murder entire villages? Inciting people to join them?

    Isn't the murder of thousands extremist?

    I'm waiting to see what these "super flaggers" think.

  • by sproketboy ( 608031 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @11:22AM (#54647665)

    Extremist- and terrorist-related = non-Marxist videos. Basically anything not mainstream or TYT is included.

A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you. -- Ramsey Clark

Working...