If YouTube was around in 1914, I wonder if Pancho Villa's video would have been posted. Or if it were around in 1947, I wonder if it wound have carried one by Dalton Trumbo. Or in 1969, one posted by The Stonewall Inn in New York City.
2
YouTube/Google should also ban crass "hunting" videos which show animals of all types being killed for entertainment, often with slow-motion replays. The people posting the videos pretend it's educational and maintain that it's technically legal. but it's really just snuff porn or terrorism against wildlife, similar to Jihadi John gloating over his victims in the desert. Most of the videos show animals in the moment they're being shot with various bullets and arrows. There are also trapping videos where sick people hover over a struggling animal they're about to kill.
YouTube's guidelines already prohibit such filth but they apparently care more about ad revenue.
YouTube's guidelines already prohibit such filth but they apparently care more about ad revenue.
6
"Freedom of Speech" has always been overprotected in the U.S.A. because Noah Webster wrote the Copy[rite] Act of 1790 and misspelled [sic] "copyright" as coined and used by Sir William Blackstone in early 1766.
http://theendofpornbywire.org/copy[rite].html
http://theendofpornbywire.org/copy[rite].html
Hany Farid and others at Dartmouth have developed eGLYPH, which applies PhotoDNA principles to identify video promoting terrorism (links below). It's time to pressure the tech companies to voluntarily crack down on terrorism, and if they won't legislate and start to sue them for material support of it.
See the May 26 broadcast of On the Media at
http://www.wnyc.org/story/focus/ > How Tech Isn't Stopping Terror and
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-hatred-goes-viral-inside...
See the May 26 broadcast of On the Media at
http://www.wnyc.org/story/focus/ > How Tech Isn't Stopping Terror and
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-hatred-goes-viral-inside...
1
Who will decide where "dissent" becomes "extremism"? What will be the criteria? I notice a lot of comments here that call for Alex Jones to be banned because of his promotion of "conspiracy theories" -- shall we accept censorship of anything and everything that might be construed as a "conspiracy theory"? Alternate theories of JFK's assassination? MLK's? Questions about WMD in Iraq and the Bush admin's honesty? Everything published by Wikileaks? Criticism of the Fed?
3
YouTube is a great example of what happens when speech is not "free." Paid speech should NOT be protected. Only "free" speech is worthy of the "freedom of speech." YouTube is greed. Pure and simple. Babbling heads making money. You can pervert any good idea, even "freedom on speech."
2
Defensive moves as described herein are, of course, of utmost importance. Offensive action, however, is the key to a long term reduction of radicalization. There is rash of YouTube videos promoting America's commonly held values, delivered in an engaging and stimulating method; videos that do not just engage, but that offer actionable steps to progress - the goal of bringing about real change for the good!
Religious differences is one of the greatest causes of death in the history of mankind. When will we as humans evolve out of that fundamental tenet of religious dogma that implies one religion, one sect, one denomination, one community church has the keys to what is right, moral, virtuous.
It is the same precept that has infected our political system.
Religious differences is one of the greatest causes of death in the history of mankind. When will we as humans evolve out of that fundamental tenet of religious dogma that implies one religion, one sect, one denomination, one community church has the keys to what is right, moral, virtuous.
It is the same precept that has infected our political system.
1
There are hundreds of other websites that show these extremist videos. We are just targeting Youtube because it is a well known public company. Its like blaming McDonalds for all the fat people in the US even though there are hundreds of other fast food chains that could easily take the blame as well. What are we going to do with websites like "Live Leaks" that also host these extremist videos? What about "death addict"? and the hundreds of other websites that are available to host these videos. This is a freedom of speech issue in which we cannot silence people. These videos are going to get posted and they will be shared. you plug one hole and another will open. How about we monitor these sites to try to find out who and from where these videos are being posted/uploaded. It will do us more good to track and arrest the people who are making/editing these videos than killing our freedom of speech!!!
8
I'm sure they are monitoring them. And the fact that YouTube does not comprise the entire offering of videos on the internet does not relieve Google of any responsibility, nor does it mean they are not doing the right thing by not offering a platform for extremism.
1
Hmm... not sure about this. Censorship by any other name is... so let's be upfront about it. Plus I doubt the efficacy of this in hiding the content from those vulnerable to it. Not when a link to it can be forwarded (I doubt the London Bridge terrorist was dropped into the abyss of YouTube extremism by an innocent search). The more likely result will be the continued growth of hidden pockets of hate, but hidden only to the unwittingly or willfully uninterested.
If the objective is to retain freedom of expression (within YouTube guidelines) but to have the reach of dubious content controlled, there are probably better models within the reach of today's technology and AI. As an example, a model that:
1. Maintains sufficient but sandboxed visibility of dubious content and its creators (so we cannot pretend it's not there, and ideally sandboxed in a way that prevents access only from minors and progressively weakens the right to anonymity of its contributors). This sandboxed content should otherwise be easily accessible, taggable and searcheable.
2. Outsources the flagging of dubious content to the YouTube crowd (including YouTube AI - algorithms are people too). And in the same way that some comments can be downvoted and upvoted then flagged content can be promoted to or demoted from the dubious sandbox.
Something like this would retain freedom of speech but weaken the speaker's right to the anonymity of that speech, while allowing the community largely police itself.
If the objective is to retain freedom of expression (within YouTube guidelines) but to have the reach of dubious content controlled, there are probably better models within the reach of today's technology and AI. As an example, a model that:
1. Maintains sufficient but sandboxed visibility of dubious content and its creators (so we cannot pretend it's not there, and ideally sandboxed in a way that prevents access only from minors and progressively weakens the right to anonymity of its contributors). This sandboxed content should otherwise be easily accessible, taggable and searcheable.
2. Outsources the flagging of dubious content to the YouTube crowd (including YouTube AI - algorithms are people too). And in the same way that some comments can be downvoted and upvoted then flagged content can be promoted to or demoted from the dubious sandbox.
Something like this would retain freedom of speech but weaken the speaker's right to the anonymity of that speech, while allowing the community largely police itself.
Who will approve videos before they can uploaded? Who is the moral censor I don't want or need? Would I trust the government? No! A private company? No! Only I want to decide what I can watch. Youtube has every right to put up whatever it wants. We do not need censorship!!!!!
3
Chris, the government is not censoring YouTube. Google is censoring itself, which it has every right to do. You already could not view copyrighted material or child p0rn on YouTube. Did you feel oppressed by this?
2
youtube is a business, they can decide to allow or not allow what they want. freedom of speech guarantees that the government won't limit your speech (within reason) not that youtube can't. if you don't like it, feel free to start your own company.
@Laura: there's plenty of copyrighted material on YT, in plain sight. It typically gets taken down only after a formal complaint by the rights owners or their reps, usually the record or film company. Until then, YT (Google) pockets all the ad revenue, which is probably why they aren't in a big hurry to enforce copyright laws on their own in the first place...
1
There is another way. Videos and content should need to be approved before they can be uploaded onto the system, rather than having to look for them after they've been put up and done their damage.
This isn't about free speech. This is about responsibility. Newspapers never allowed anyone to write and publish anything without concern for what the intent and affect was. Whole publications may have been extremist, but they weren't able to reach into the bedrooms of your children for example, and they didn't get an automatic right to be widely distributed to everyone for free.
Free distribution and promotion of terrorist propaganda and brainwashing recruitment is not a right. YouTube or any other SNS doesn't have the right to distribute that to our youth, to the vulnerable and easily manipulated, to the misdirected and angry, to the twisted and perverted, but mainly to the many who if not so exposed may have worked through their difficulties and gone on to live a normal life, rather than be drawn into terrorism.
Common, why does YouTube or anyone else have the right to propagate terrorism?
This isn't about free speech. This is about responsibility. Newspapers never allowed anyone to write and publish anything without concern for what the intent and affect was. Whole publications may have been extremist, but they weren't able to reach into the bedrooms of your children for example, and they didn't get an automatic right to be widely distributed to everyone for free.
Free distribution and promotion of terrorist propaganda and brainwashing recruitment is not a right. YouTube or any other SNS doesn't have the right to distribute that to our youth, to the vulnerable and easily manipulated, to the misdirected and angry, to the twisted and perverted, but mainly to the many who if not so exposed may have worked through their difficulties and gone on to live a normal life, rather than be drawn into terrorism.
Common, why does YouTube or anyone else have the right to propagate terrorism?
14
That is my question. I have listened to speakers in Hyde Park, London. Many of them were ranting, or proposing things which made the gathered audience laugh. But, these people were real, visible, and could be identified if they began to encourage the assassination of government officials, or murder in a general sense. We don't have newspaper articles, or columns, telling people to kill the President, or or public officials; Charlie Manson instructed his followers to murder people; I don't recall "free speech" entering into his arrest and conviction. Terrorism is promoted by various individuals and groups; however, it is not accepted as a public right, or service. I think this discussion has devolved into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Instructing followers or readers to commit murder is not "free speech"; it is no different than the old Mafia, or current violent gang initiations. Murder is a crime. I have never read any defense of murder, political or otherwise. Anonymous political terrorists either commit murder, or instruct others to commit murder. It is a new phenomenon; it will require new legal policies and laws. I don't think even Gotti would have considered an instruction to eliminate an enemy as a form of "free speech".
1
Such a tough dilemma. I'm pro free speech but anti platforms that encourage hate speech. Online platform providers should be fined for not removing hateful posts quickly enough ... but ... society at large needs to step up too. Stop fueling conditions that spawn vengeful imams and hate-mongering.
1
While I agree freedom of speech is sacred, YouTube IS a service owned by a corporation and it's within their rights to restrict the content posted as they see fit.
If you don't like their rules, post your video somewhere else.
If you don't like their rules, post your video somewhere else.
13
Common sense thinking! Thanks.
3
I guess "free use" in YouTube is not exactly free. It has to be under the censorship of "social responsibility" term. Just like "capitalism" is not completely capitalism. It is only applicable when in convenience.
1
It appears be a daunting task for YouTube, but Google has the resources to make it work. Then there are those that are quite obvious, because they are always in the limelight, so YouTube can bury them much quicker. I'm speaking of Alex Jones. He's a good start, Lets bury Alex Jones ASAP. The world will be a better place with liars like and extremists like that out of the picture.
12
Using the London Bridge attacker as an example of videos resulting in actions that are contrary to the public good, in that same breath you can easily point to all the insanely lying, biased videos that come primarily from The Right, and you know what I mean. Their is now a lucrative video source for primarily The Right to slander The left. And there is no reasonable argument to deny this fact. You Tube should have the right to not show anything that cannot be backed up with substantial proof. End of story.
4
So you think they should censor anyone you disagree with; basically anyone sharing or promoting views espoused by "The Right"? How "Liberal", "tolerant", and respectful of "diversity" of opinion! Unfortunately, this type of debate-crushing, totalitarian attitude is becoming a trademark of the so-called progressive and liberal Left, and pushing centrists, moderates, and democrats (actual democrats, not members of the party) away from the dominant echo chamber. You can pretty much blame yourself for Trump...
3
Youtube is NOT a news outlet... what are you doing to do with little grandma that posts her recepie for how to cure the worse cold that is not substantiate by facts? Are you going to take down her video? Youtube is a platform for people to be able to share their idea and be able to have a voice. what you are asking for is to limit and kill that voice! Freedom of speech should not be lost because of these crazy maniacs!
So I assume it will be taking down Infowars, the Alex Joans Youtube page? Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist radio host who is one of Donald Trump’s media sycophants, is monetizing his content as part of the YouTube Partner Program even though Infowars' content regularly violates the program’s policies and guidelines for advertising. Jones’ YouTube videos and other content feature extreme anti-LGBTQ and racist commentary, and Infowars promotes conspiracy theories that have encouraged harassment of families that lost children in the Sandy Hook massacre and led to a gunman firing shots in a Washington, D.C., pizzeria.
17
Don't be ridiculous. If Alex Jones had called for violence against Muslims, LGBTQXYZ, and/or racial minorities, I'm pretty sure the press would have seized on the occasion to further demonize him. I certainly don't have a profound knowledge of his programs (I only started checking out his videos to see what the fuss was about after reading of him in the Liberal press), but there was nothing more over-the-top or outrageously offensive in what I heard on his site than what I've read from Charles Blow or Susan Chira in the NYT concerning Whites or men. If criticism is good for the goose, it should likewise be good for the gander. And in a time when the entirety of the "official" news media is owned by a handful of corporations, it seems pretty healthy to me that diverging points of view are allowed to be aired to mitigate or counter the narrative produced by said handful of corporations.
Regarding "conspiracy theories that have encouraged harassment of families ", I certainly hope you also plan to hold BLM accountable for cops shot by BLM-inspired radicals? The difference being that perhaps some crazies have seized on a conspiracy theory (not followed suggestions) to harass families of sandy Hook victims in one case; but in the other, police officers have died following direct suggestions for all to hear chanted during BLM protests/riots/looting sprees ("pigs in a blanket").
Regarding "conspiracy theories that have encouraged harassment of families ", I certainly hope you also plan to hold BLM accountable for cops shot by BLM-inspired radicals? The difference being that perhaps some crazies have seized on a conspiracy theory (not followed suggestions) to harass families of sandy Hook victims in one case; but in the other, police officers have died following direct suggestions for all to hear chanted during BLM protests/riots/looting sprees ("pigs in a blanket").
2
Since when has Alex Jones not encouraged violence? The fact that he has not encouraged violence against protected classes should not be considered a point in his gavor.
@A Rubin: I must plead ignorance on this one, because there were no calls for violence in the videos I saw; just political commentary and criticism consistent, if in opposition, with what I hear from the Left pretty much every day.
If his encouraging violence is a common occurrence as you seem to claim, would you care to post a link to enlighten those unaware of his violence-inducing speech, and to definitively prove your point? Because for the moment, the calls to censor him seem like no more than the cries of people threatened by differing ideas...
If his encouraging violence is a common occurrence as you seem to claim, would you care to post a link to enlighten those unaware of his violence-inducing speech, and to definitively prove your point? Because for the moment, the calls to censor him seem like no more than the cries of people threatened by differing ideas...
1
What took so long. Hate speech should not have protections. Ever. Speech which condones or promotes violence should be banned. Youtube and Facebook have been way too slow to filter out these messages; they should be fined HUGE fines!
6
Fine You Tube and Facebook while our laws support the offender's freedom of speech. It's great these two companies are trying while, as a country, we do nothing to stop this kind of activity.
1
You are absolutely on the mark with your post.
"Free speech" does not require that every platform must become a vehicle for hate and threats. But then, I'm someone who could live without Internet chatter, even though I turn to the Net for information and communication. It's not that I miss "the good old days" -- there is no such thing when examined closely -- but do strongly feel that ugly, threatening blogs and postings are directly implicated in much of the rudeness, arrogance, aggression and violence that is common in daily life. People who make money from these sites need to police them adequately.
"Free speech" does not require that every platform must become a vehicle for hate and threats. But then, I'm someone who could live without Internet chatter, even though I turn to the Net for information and communication. It's not that I miss "the good old days" -- there is no such thing when examined closely -- but do strongly feel that ugly, threatening blogs and postings are directly implicated in much of the rudeness, arrogance, aggression and violence that is common in daily life. People who make money from these sites need to police them adequately.
4
'' Live by the video and die by the video '' ( updated saying for our times )
I concur. It does seem to strike a careful balance. I am a big proponent of free speech ( even that which I detest ) , but indeed, we should monetize it and offer it all of the same perks as free speech that does not propose hate or violence.
More cat videos !
I concur. It does seem to strike a careful balance. I am a big proponent of free speech ( even that which I detest ) , but indeed, we should monetize it and offer it all of the same perks as free speech that does not propose hate or violence.
More cat videos !
3
Meanwhile the American Islamic Preacher remains in place, using the protections of country and our freedom of speech, while doing everything he can to destroy those freedoms. Perhaps our laws need closer examination.
7
And what signifies "extremism"? Is that equally a matter of values and judgment? Extremism is easier to identify, however: it's whatever the prevailing societal status quo and its ideology aren't comfortable with. That should make at least that topic easier for Google to shut down. Just ask our leaders in government, commerce, and culture. But who is "our"? And who are we?