Google plans to scrub 'inflammatory' and terror vids from youTube Google's revealed its plans to remove terror-related content from YouTube and decided the investment community should hear about it before the rest of us. The plan emerged in a post first published in the Financial Times and later popped online, the company's revealed a four-point plan. As was the case in Facebook's anti- …
There is one basic problem with any approach Chocolate Factory might use. Give a precise definition, particularly for cases where it is being discussed rather than promoted. As much as I would like to see it removed, I have issues with any system one might use because it is not easily defined.
It's not really precise. You get a hint at what they are driving at when they say the BBC can post a video but not someone else using the same video to make a different point. If they don't approve of the views of the person reposting the video it can be removed based on the same content that was OK when the BBC used it.
A good example of that would be the masked doctor video where the BBC change her words to say "Chemical Attack". The only reason this was discovered was it was old footage rehashed by the BBC. Someone used both BBC videos to show the BBC making fake news. If Google trust the BBC then they would need to remove videos made by others using the BBC footage. They can do this based on the principle that people showing the BBC to be liars must be extremists. The reasoning goes; if someone shows the BBC faked the "chemical attack" footage then they must be supporting Assad and therefore an extremist.
I live in the UK but I often like to watch certain types of videos on YouTube made by people who live in a distant country. They brandish high powered rifles and extol the virtues of owning and firing such weaponry, with idealistic glee. I find myself wanting to try this and I'm thinking about travelling to this country to join one of these groups. Will I still be allowed to watch these videos and am I in danger of being put on some kind of watch list or having my passport confiscated?
Probably they've been getting questions from analysts who keep reading the bad press Google and Facebook have been getting about making it easier for terrorists to connect and want to know what they're going to do. Not that the analysts care about stopping terrorism, they just want to stop the bad press. And Google just wants to stop analysts asking them hard questions, because if they can't give satisfactory answers, analysts may respond with downgrades that will jeopardize exec's stock options!
Google does not want to outright say that only the government propaganda machine of the BBC has the right to free speech but that is what they are driving at.
Allowing possibly extremist videos to be published but denying people the ability to argue against them is along the same lines as only allowing the BBC a voice. Except they're choosing to allow the extremist's message to go unchallenged.
An example would be not allowing people to air their thoughts on a hot news topic because they might be very different from the BBC or government. As is the case with the Towering Inferno. One chap said he thought it was arson and the video is on YouTube but the BBC only showed it live and after that removed it. Once the YouTube mods find it they will remove it.
You can't be in the uk unless you are a rampantly extremist loony lefter or facisitic ukipper. BBC may have a touch of a faint, light, left of centre "liberal" bias but no more than that ..Given every government of either colour since thatcher has had at least one giant row with the beeb and all uk govs accuse the beeb of being biased against them, that would suggest they are doing their job right .. the beeb is clearly not a gov propoganda machine but telling you this if you are a breitbart/bannon/farage acolyte loon who thinks fox news is "fair and balance" will get me precisely nowhere :(
(in the spirit of equality, same holds if you are mcdonnell/mason type momentum loon who ludicrously have been bashing the beeb for being biased against them too)
"Why doesn't Google only allow certain users to upload possibly terrorist-flagged Videos"
Well unfortunately, the miscreant uploaders for some reason, dont flag their Videos up as being terrorism-related when they upload them. Those dastardly users not using the correct tags, what ever will we do?
To be less flippant - Youtube exists because anyone can upload a Video from anywhere on to the site. If you started only allowing approved users do the uploads, Youtube would die pretty quickly. So dont expect Google to go down that route anytime soon.
Those dastardly users not using the correct tags, what ever will we do?
Hmmm. In order to get the videos watched don't they have to advertise them in some way, with tags or descriptions?
Even if they are linking to them from elsewhere can't Google etc (who claim to know everything about everything) detect that YT video aaabbbccc is being linked to from sites glorifying in the death of members of group QQQQ.
Fortunately governments never encourage the publication of videos extolling the virtues of taking a war to a distant land, so Google won't have to worry about deleting gun camera videos or propaganda clips of triumphant celebrations on the deck of an aircraft carrier (since no self-respecting terrorist would ever use an aircraft carrier to kill innocent civilians).
SEEN to do more. Right. Sell the sizzle, not the steak. Unfortunately, I am sure that is exactly how it will go. "Oh, look how much we are doing!"
Meanwhile, what is the point of all of these "secret" government projects to build supercomputers to monitor everything and scan for keywords blah blah blah if we start preventing malfeasance? If Bob From Accounting can't comment on Going Postal: Dos and Don'ts, then how can the "secret" government projects make their lists and check them twice? Maybe Google will need to give terrorists a backdoor so that the government still (allegedly) knows who is naughty and who is nice.
it is what we say it is. And it is not what we say is not.
If we are caught in egregious and blatant error, we will blame "AI" or "Machine Learning" or "the Algorithm".
We will then focus maximum effort to make sure future *reports and allegations* of Paid or Politically Motivated Censorship are properly scrubbed to avoid future controversy.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
