back to article Amazon teases package drone, US civil rights folk want facial recog tech ban and AI carumba – YouTube!

It's been a busy seven days in the world of AI, what with Facebook purloining a database of 3D objects to use in its AI projects, and boffins writing software to produce machine-learning models tiny enough to operate inside microcontrollers. But here's a round-up of news nuggets beyond what we've already covered. Amazon's …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Carlos Maza is not a journalist.

    1. tiggity Silver badge

      Re: Correction

      Which (if true - though journalism does not just mean old skool print media any more, & lots of people would say he was a journalist) is irrelevant to the issue of homophobic and racial slurs

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Correction

        I haven't really seen any slurs, even in the two-minutes video made from two-seconds outtakes that Maza edited out of dozens of hours of Crowler's channel. From where I stand, calling people "gay Mexican" or "queer" are not slurs. Crowler does call Maza "lispy", which is... kind of an insult... at the level of a wet paper bag.

        We all love it when John Oliver calls Boris Johnson a "shaved orangutan with Owen Wilson's hair", and that is a much worse insult.

  2. Timmy B


    You've posted a whole load of comment from Carlos Maza, yet nothing of the opposing side. Fancy some balance and context?

    1. Mephistro

      Re: Context?

      "...yet nothing of the opposing side."

      To be fair, the comments from Carlos Maza include lots of embedded comments from "the opposing side". Vile stuff, imo.

      And there is some nominative determinism at work, as this Steven Crowder seems to be that guy that's always at the front of a linching crowd.

      1. Timmy B

        Re: Context?

        You do realise that Steven Crowder only used comments about Carlos Maza that Carlos already used about himself?

      2. rixtison

        Re: Context?

        On the contrary, Crowder has yet to advocate any sort of physical violence, as that would be one of the two exceptions to his First Amendment rights. Conversely, Carlos Maza has repeatedly called for 'milkshaking', as well as other acts of assault or battery against those with whom he disagrees.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. Dan 55 Silver badge

    Harassment and YouTube

    YouTube is so useless/screwed up (delete as applicable), you'd have better luck getting a video harassing you taken down if you copyrighted the word in question then filed a DMCA takedown notice on the harasser's video.

  4. NomadUK


    I'm trying to figure out how parents 'unwittingly' post their home movies to YouTube. Do they do it in their sleep? Does their hand slip across the mouse and keyboard as they reach for their coffee cup and inadvertently execute the upload?

    1. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: Unwittingly!

      I'm trying to figure out how parents 'unwittingly' post their home movies to YouTube

      I think they try and post them as private so that only people with permissions can view them, but mess up the settings somehow. For example, upload a kid's birthday message to grandma in Australia with privacy configured so only grandma can look. Or maybe they are just stupid and don't realise their videos can be seen by Herbert.

      I wouldn't put anything on there.

  5. Wellyboot Silver badge


    >>>minors under the age of 13 will not be allowed to livestream themselves unless they're accompanied by an adult<<<

    If Y-T think this of will in any way solve their pedo problem then polite words fail me.

    1. Mike 16

      Re: FFS (Adult accompaniment)

      But... Uncle Ernie is a wiz at video, and _so_ good with the kids!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: FFS

      I know of at least one apparently responsible professional who allowed their children a Facebook account when under 13 and allowed them to lie on it about their age etc., and when taken to task said "Well, if I hadn't said yes they would have done it anyway."

  6. martinusher Silver badge

    Facial Recognition Horse Has Long Bolted

    I find it difficult to figure out how you can ban facial recognition technology. The best we're going to be able to do in the US is make it inadmissable as evidence, but then it was never going to be primary evidence, just the means by which law enforcement can narrow down a search for suspects. We're told repeatedly that it doesn't work, it makes too many mistakes, it discriminates against such and such a group but as engineers we know that not only is it likely to work but its likely to get really good very quickly. (We're already rolling out facial recognition instead of boarding passes at some airports.)

    Its an unfortunate fact of life that people only notice the problem with something when its too late to do anything about it. We've been living with intrusive surveillance technologies for a couple of decades, whether its ANPR or CCTV on every street corner (or just plain looking at your mail and messages) but apparently it was OK because it was always "the other guy", the bad one, that's affected. Just like the "first they came for the socialists" (Martin Niemoller) everyone rationalizes these things because they don't understand the implications and think those that raise the alarm are being unduly hysterical (or tainted?). Now the future is here. Enjoy!

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    YouTube also announced that it is going to tackle hate. Only it's not the hate from Stephen Crowder. Instead, it's going after Nazi supremacy vids, and any bonkers conspiracies that deny any "well-documented violent events" ever took place. So, Holocaust deniers, take note, you are not welcome.

    Unless, of course, the hate makes money. Otherwise they'd have to ban Trump too and they won't, no different to Twatter. So hello Yet Another Empty Gesture For Publicity's Sake.

    1. Byham

      Re: Youtube..

      YouTuibe are not like AT&T or T-Mobile carrying 'mere data' which is not examined. YouTube is checking content and deciding which to monetize, which to just show, or, which to ban. Doesn't this make YouTube a publisher and subject to all the legal requirements that come with being a publisher?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like