Carlos Maza is not a journalist.
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 …
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.
"...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.
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.
This post has been deleted by its author
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.
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!
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.
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?