As the Texas Tornado replied, “NOBODY COULD HAVE PREDICTED THAT CALLS FOR CENSORSHIP MIGHT BACKFIRE,” because, of course, he did, I did, many people did. It’s not that we’re prescient, though we may be, but because it was so obvious that there was essentially no chance that censorship wouldn’t result in Youtube overshooting even its own mark.
YouTube’s campaign against hateful and racist videos is claiming some unintended victims: researchers and advocates working to expose racist hatemongers.
A video published by the Southern Poverty Law Center was among those taken down after the company announced plans Wednesday to remove more videos and channels that advocate white supremacy.
Putting aside the irony that “unintended victim” was published by SPLC, the nature of the video was opposite of what the purge intended to remove.
The civil rights advocacy group received an email notification early Thursday that a video of journalist Max Blumenthal interviewing prominent British Holocaust denier David Irving was removed from the SPLC’s YouTube channel.
How does Youtube justify its heavy hand?
“We know that this might be disappointing, but it’s important to us that YouTube is a safe place for all. If content breaks our rules, we remove it,” YouTube said in the email.
The woke response is to blame the algos. After all, algos have no feelings, so they can’t be offended.
“It indicates that they have not refined well enough the difference between someone who is exploring issues of racism and hatred and someone who’s promoting it,” Beirich said.
Perhaps this makes sense for some, but then, what if the use of language is itself as hurtful, violent, as so many seem to believe? Why would these words be less violent when used for “exploring” rather than “promoting,” if words or ideas are inherently evil? When the argument is focused on nonsensical harms and conflated pain, should it matter whether the bullet is fired from the SPLC’s gun rather than some snarkmonger’s?
To accept this notion would be to admit the flaw of the underlying concept, that “hate speech” defies definition, or that the purported violence of which they complain is a lie to rid society of words when used in ways they don’t like by people they don’t like, but otherwise not violence and helpful rather than harmful.
Jessica J. González, vice president of strategy at the media advocacy organization Free Press, said it’s important for tech companies to rely on human moderators as opposed to algorithms to train staff in cultural competency and to ensure their appeal processes are simple, transparent and rapid.
If human moderation was possible (it’s not, but go with it for Jessica’s sake), would that cure the algos’ deficiencies?
González’s organization helped develop a set of suggested content moderation policies. She said the suggested policies were informed by the experiences of people whose posts have been taken down on Twitter and Facebook for calling out racism.
Her “suggested content moderation policies” avoid such algo-driven problems as keywords by eliminating all meaning whatsoever.
Users may not use these services to engage in hateful activities or use these services to facilitate hateful activities engaged in elsewhere, whether online or offline.
Well, that certainly clears things up, and put in the hands of human mods, couldn’t possibly result in all manner of mischief.
For those simpletons who fail to grasp, or just don’t care about, the eradication of expression that even they find harmless, if not actually helpful, as a cost of eliminating “hate speech” so as to make websites like Youtube a “safe space,” the problems remain obvious and flagrant. Not only is there no way to sufficiently define “hate” as to produce a workable solution, but one person’s hate is another person’s love. What if the expression at hand related to Israeli/Palestinian relations? Which side wins the hate battle, dykes notwithstanding?
Wait, can I say “dyke”? Certainly lesbians can say “dyke,” and in fact specifically call their march the “Dyke March,” but I am not a lesbian. If I use their word, will I be p