YouTube is deleting comments with two phrases that insult China’s Communist Party

[foldingNoob]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

This is not a free speech issue, but it certainly is starting to become a compelled speech issue when people think they can force a private company to platform a view they disagree with.

When a platform hosts someone with views they don't like, that person is not compelling the platform to speak. This argument is subversion!

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

It is not based on any philosophical merits

It is in human nature to think freely. The abrahamic faiths understand this and so do the pre-christian philosophers. American free speech comes from revolutionary & liberal ideas, based on Christianity and western philosophy. When you claim to know what free speech is, and dismiss it's philosophical foundations, you lose your ethos with me.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, foldingNoob said:

When you claim to know what free speech is, and dismiss it's philosophical foundations, you lose your ethos with me.

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

Freedom of speech is not guaranteed in most countries, and in the US it is a constitutional right for specific purposes. 

  I think a lot of times when people refer to "free speech" they do not refer to the first amendment of the US constitution as a law but rather the philosophical concept of being free to say things without having your words or ideas censored by someone with more power than you. It's even declared as a human right in the UDHR (article 19).

Quote

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

This is obviously not a law either, but it's a concept that people want to be true.

 

I think people who respond to "company X is censoring Y. Freedom of speech is under attack" with "they are legally allowed to do so" misses the point.

 

 

Besides, the intention of "freedom of speech", as first conceived in ancient Greece, then called "isegoria", can be translated to something along the lines of "equal speech in public". It shares it roots with "agora" which was the central public space in Greek cities. The spirit of the idea was "give everyone an equal voice where there are people to listen". As the "agora" moved from state owned public spaces to privately owned websites, the law became a shadow of its former self and no longer serve its original purpose (let people share, debate and make counterarguments to ideas they disagree with).

[suicidalfranco]

 

6 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

The existence of a dictatorship is derogatory, should we just delete the Chinese government?

yes

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, foldingNoob said:

When a platform hosts someone with views they don't like, that person is not compelling the platform to speak. This argument is subversion!

If a platform is forced to host content that they do not agree with then that absolutely is compelled speech.

 

2 hours ago, foldingNoob said:

It is in human nature to think freely. The abrahamic faiths understand this and so do the pre-christian philosophers. American free speech comes from revolutionary & liberal ideas, based on Christianity and western philosophy. When you claim to know what free speech is, and dismiss it's philosophical foundations, you lose your ethos with me.

You can talk about the philosophical aspects of free speech all you want,  but as soon as you try to force any private entity to platform content they disagree with you enter the realm of law and dictatorship.  Not freedom of personal choice and affiliation.

 

25 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

  I think a lot of times when people refer to "free speech" they do not refer to the first amendment of the US constitution as a law but rather the philosophical concept of being free to say things without having your words or ideas censored by someone with more power than you. It's even declared as a human right in the UDHR (article 19).

This is obviously not a law either, but it's a concept that people want to be true.

 

I think people who respond to "company X is censoring Y. Freedom of speech is under attack" with "they are legally allowed to do so" misses the point.

 

 

Besides, the intention of "freedom of speech", as first conceived in ancient Greece, then called "isegoria", can be translated to something along the lines of "equal speech in public". It shares it roots with "agora" which was the central public space in Greek cities. The spirit of the idea was "give everyone an equal voice where there are people to listen". As the "agora" moved from state owned public spaces to privately owned websites, the law became a shadow of its former self and no longer serve its original purpose (let people share, debate and make counterarguments to ideas they disagree with).

 

You can't have freedom of speech in any of its manifestations unless there is a law or constitutional amendment that protects you in execution of said speech.    Such laws can only go as far as giving you the right to speak, they cannot force a private entity to platform your speech.  So whilst much of the speech is moving to private platforms where companies retain censorship control,  the solution is not automatically found in simply moving free speech laws to cover private platforms.   In doing so raises some very complex issues that aren't going to be solved here, and aren't likely going to be solved to majority of people standards in the foreseeable future.  It's easy to give someone the right to speak, not so easy to ensure they have an adequate platform.

[Bombastinator]

52 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

 

yes

since we’re doing imho stuff, The Chinese government has problems but so very clearly does the US government or any other government I can think of.   The Chinese government has some fairly deep specific problems though. 
I used to be more willing to dis the Chinese government, but lately the US one is so very terrible the Chinese one has grown less bad by comparison.  Not that it’s gotten better.  It’s merely that my government has gotten worse.  I think they’ve actually got a better chief executive at the moment.  

[Trik'Stari]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

If a platform is forced to host content that they do not agree with then that absolutely is compelled speech.

 

You can talk about the philosophical aspects of free speech all you want,  but as soon as you try to force any private entity to platform content they disagree with you enter the realm of law and dictatorship.  Not freedom of personal choice and affiliation.

 

 

You can't have freedom of speech in any of its manifestations unless there is a law or constitutional amendment that protects you in execution of said speech.    Such laws can only go as far as giving you the right to speak, they cannot force a private entity to platform your speech.  So whilst much of the speech is moving to private platforms where companies retain censorship control,  the solution is not automatically found in simply moving free speech laws to cover private platforms.   In doing so raises some very complex issues that aren't going to be solved here, and aren't likely going to be solved to majority of people standards in the foreseeable future.  It's easy to give someone the right to speak, not so easy to ensure they have an adequate platform.

If a platform refuses to host speech it disagrees with, it's no longer a platform, it is in fact a publisher. A platform is neutral, a publisher is entitled to put out only that which it agrees with, but can also be held liable for that which it says, a platform cannot.

 

You're also neglecting the part where those running the "platform" are using that power to try to manipulate the wider population to think the way they want. At what point does their power over the population become an unacceptable abuse of power? Those I disagree with politically are always pointing out how the "rich abuse their power and influence" well what about this kind of behavior?

 

There are plenty of reasons and examples of business being limited and regulated to protect the rights of the customers and the general population. I see nothing wrong with Youtube, Twitter, Google, and Facebook being taken to task for their blatant political bias when you take the sheer amount of reach they have into context.

 

I'm not sure exactly how they should be slapped down, but I am more than certain that they should be slapped down.

[poochyena]

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

there are many repeated derogatory comments that are not filtered or on any filter list.

So doesn't that prove even more that this is a random outlier, than some conspiracy?

[Bombastinator]

12 minutes ago, poochyena said:

So doesn't that prove even more that this is a random outlier, than some conspiracy?

Prove? No prove is a big word that gets over used.  It is indicitive though.  It implies.  Same problem as those “eggs are good for you eggs are bad for you” things.  It’s just one point.  It could have been done on purpose by someone but merely done badly or incompletely.  
 

 

The problem with that egg garbage is that even though various kinds of marketers wanted a particular tiny piece of evidence to “prove” none of them actually did.  It was marketing BS not science BS.  It does say it MIGHT not be one. It MIGHT still also be one though.  That’s what might means. Kind of like “may”.  The possibility that it isn’t exists. That’s not nothing.    More data points are needed though.  The company claims they are looking for some.
 

I kinda want to know what the company has to say after they look into this one.

[dizmo]

On 5/27/2020 at 12:11 AM, ravenshrike said:

No, it's an automatic algorithm plus a manually curated blacklist. The system is NOT wholly black boxed and the whole "it's automatic and this is happening accidentally" is bullshit.

Right, but if the word is derogatory (which it seems it is), then what's the problem. Sure, it's used by a group that's considered by most to be "the right one", but one could easily have views that are the opposite. Derogatory is derogatory.

On 5/27/2020 at 1:44 AM, williamcll said:

Ironic that the land of the free becomes just as authoritarian (or even greater) than a communist nation, then people were not happy when the socialist candidate lost to a neoliberal. The salt in these posts are palatable.

 

>inb4 thread lock

Greater? That's hilarious.

On 5/27/2020 at 6:35 AM, foldingNoob said:

I dismiss the "private platform" argument in this way. Sure the law allows them to censor, and in some ways you do want some censorship. I don't want to see ISIS beheading videos or any kind of cruelty. However banning certain words is violating the philosophical idea that is "free speech". The platform is not just a business, it's also an institution. An institution that can have a lot of influence over how you see the world. Everyone draws a line somewhere, but that line does not have to be what the current law defines.

 

We all know about the language control that is a major theme of Orwell's 1984. In the real world it is observed in Robert Lifton's book on totalitarianism where he interviewed people in the '50s that escaped from the mainland China. You can get a summary on wikipedia and I recommend everyone read it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism

Free speech shouldn't be allowed everywhere.

You'd be fine with the platform having lots of Nazi propaganda, or hate speech against black people?

YouTube is not, by definition, an institution. It doesn't matter what you think in regards to this, it's just not.

23 hours ago, GodSeph said:

appeasing one of the biggest money making markets in the world like most other companies. This is the new normal, we have to thank almost every country willing to have all manufacturing done in China to thank for this. Purchasing power is a huge thing and whoever has the people to spend the money at that level will decide the rules. 

 

/shrug unless things change we will see this more and more till every big retailer/website/entertainment will bow to the Chinese market since they spend the most and make the companies the most money. 

 

honestly im surprised it doesnt remove videos criticizing the Chinese government or at least have a youtube version meant only for china where it blocks that content and moderates the comments. Maybe this was a security feature for this version that accidentally got turned on for global versions?

China's getting too expensive to do business in, so we'll rapidly see the shift to India as their infrastructure improves, or the Philippines, etc.

What one has to worry about is the effect China's dominance will take on the rest of the world as it rapidly becomes self sufficient.

 

Your last part of the comment would make a lot of sense.

23 hours ago, Sauron said:

I've seen much worse than this in youtube comments so I doubt this is the case. It's not a person intervening, it's just an automated filter, that doesn't mean this particular phrase wasn't intentionally inserted in the system.

Well I mean, if it's derogatory, of course it was intentionally inserted. It doesn't matter if it's for or against a certain political party, derogatory is derogatory, it doesn't matter if it goes against what you consider is correct.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

If a platform refuses to host speech it disagrees with, it's no longer a platform, it is in fact a publisher. A platform is neutral, a publisher is entitled to put out only that which it agrees with, but can also be held liable for that which it says, a platform cannot.

The question of whether you prescribe the status of publisher or not to a company does not address free speech issues, it only addresses liability issues.  A publisher can be held liable for content they publish, but they cannot be compelled to publish material they disagree with. In this case making youtube a publisher would make them liable for all content they publish, but it still wouldn't force them to publish material they don't want to.

 

8 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

You're also neglecting the part where those running the "platform" are using that power to try to manipulate the wider population to think the way they want. At what point does their power over the population become an unacceptable abuse of power? Those I disagree with politically are always pointing out how the "rich abuse their power and influence" well what about this kind of behavior?

I don't think I neglected that, I am pointing out that addressing that is not simple.

 

8 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

There are plenty of reasons and examples of business being limited and regulated to protect the rights of the customers and the general population. I see nothing wrong with Youtube, Twitter, Google, and Facebook being taken to task for their blatant political bias when you take the sheer amount of reach they have into context.

I would like to see that happen too, I just don't know how that would look in a way that satisfies free speech.  

 

8 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

I'm not sure exactly how they should be slapped down, but I am more than certain that they should be slapped down.

I think we agree more than not.

 

6 hours ago, poochyena said:

So doesn't that prove even more that this is a random outlier, than some conspiracy?

It does not "prove" anything, but it does suggest strongly this is not a random.  But the sheer number of similar and worse content that does not get removed suggests if this is being removed (instantly in some cases) that there is a reason which isn't adequately explained by attributing it to a random algorithm .

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

The question of whether you prescribe the status of publisher or not to a company does not address free speech issues, it only addresses liability issues.  A publisher can be held liable for content they publish, but they cannot be compelled to publish material they disagree with. In this case making youtube a publisher would make them liable for all content they publish, but it still wouldn't force them to publish material they don't want to.

 

I don't think I neglected that, I am pointing out that addressing that is not simple.

 

I would like to see that happen too, I just don't know how that would look in a way that satisfies free speech.  

 

I think we agree more than not.

 

It does not "prove" anything, but it does suggest strongly this is not a random.  But the sheer number of similar and worse content that does not get removed suggests if this is being removed (instantly in some cases) that there is a reason which isn't adequately explained by attributing it to a random algorithm .

My solution is to simply apply that liability to them, and classify them as publishers.

 

Maybe strengthen the laws protecting the rights of the people who make their content.. 

[TetraSky]

I don't get why Youtube does this. Youtube(and most of Google) is banned in China. There's no reason for them to bend over to the Chinese communist party.

 

Also, THIS is actual Censorship, unlike what is going on at Twitter.

[Arika]

4 hours ago, dizmo said:

You'd be fine with the platform having lots of Nazi propaganda, or hate speech against black people?

 

Your last part of the comment would make a lot of sense.

Well I mean, if it's derogatory, of course it was intentionally inserted. It doesn't matter if it's for or against a certain political party, derogatory is derogatory, it doesn't matter if it goes against what you consider is correct.

You mean like how the rest of social media has lots of Marxist propaganda (or what ever other buzzword you want to use, because that's what "Nazi" has become, a buzzword for anyone even slightly right of center*) and hate speech against white people?

 

Spoiler

*for these crazy people on social media, i'm NOT saying all left-leaning people use Nazi to describe all right wingers

It doesn't matter if it's for or against a certain political party/race/sexuality/gender, derogatory is derogatory and everything should be moderated equally or not at all. There is currently a huge bias is social media that makes any kind of political discussion about anything impossible. The current internet landscape does not provide anywhere for productive discourse or discussion for conflicting ideals/thoughts.

 

You've got the echo chamber that is reddit, twitter, facebook, tumblr for left leaning people that right wingers get banned from in disproportionate amounts

 

and you've got the echo chamber that is Voat, gab, 4chan for right leaning people that left wingers refuse to go to because they don't want to acknowledge other opinions.

 

Echo chambers are bad in all forms, and while most people will think i'm a right wing nazi for saying the above, i'm actually slightly left of centre on most things, but this is one of the "right-wing" things i'm actually for.

[Bombastinator]

9 minutes ago, Arika S said:

You mean like how the rest of social media has lots of Marxist propaganda (or what ever other buzzword you want to use, because that's what "Nazi" has become, a buzzword for anyone even slightly right of center*) and hate speech against white people?

 

  Reveal hidden contents

*for these crazy people on social media, i'm NOT saying all left-leaning people use Nazi to describe all right wingers

It doesn't matter if it's for or against a certain political party/race/sexuality/gender, derogatory is derogatory and everything should be moderated equally or not at all. There is currently a huge bias is social media that makes any kind of political discussion about anything impossible. The current internet landscape does not provide anywhere for productive discourse or discussion for conflicting ideals/thoughts.

 

You've got the echo chamber that is reddit, twitter, facebook, tumblr for left leaning people that right wingers get banned from in disproportionate amounts

 

and you've got the echo chamber that is Voat, gab, 4chan for right leaning people that left wingers refuse to go to because they don't want to acknowledge other opinions.

 

Echo chambers are bad in all forms, and while most people will think i'm a right wing nazi for saying the above, i'm actually slightly left of centre on most things, but this is one of the "right-wing" things i'm actually for.

You’re referring to Godwin’s law.  The problem is the nazi party didn’t die with the German national socialists.  The American nazi party officially merged with the KKK in the 1970’s so KKKmembers are nazis now.

 

it’s like how you hear KKK members say “I’m not racist” it’s sort of very narrowly true.  One has to define racism very specifically using an outdated definition, but it can be done.  Of course the word “racist” has changed meaning somewhat so by basically very other definition they’re racist.  If you define “nazi” as a member of the German national socialist party you are correct.  If you define nazi as one supporting the less savory aspects of the national socialist and using their techniques of propaganda and terror though it might fit.  That sort of nazi behavior has become quite common.  It’s one of the reasons the term neo-nazi was coined.
 

 

The term has been overused but it can still be used accurately. 

[Arika]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

it’s like how you hear KKK members say “I’m not racist” it’s sort of very narrowly true.  One has to define racism very specifically using an outdated definition, but it can be done.  Of course the word “racist” has changed meaning somewhat so by basically very other definition they’re racist.  If you define “nazi” as a member of the German national socialist party you are correct.  If you define nazi as one supporting the less savory aspects of the national socialist and using their techniques of propaganda and terror though it might fit.  That sort of nazi behavior has become quite common.  It’s one of the reasons the term neo-nazi was coined.

which is true, but not how it gets used the majority of the time these days.

I can't remember the last time i saw a nazi accusation that would have fit into the nazi definition. in most cases it's just a way to try and discredit something someone has said because they dont want to have a conversation about it. Again, they WANT their echo chamber where everyone thinks the way they do, and if they don't, they are a nazi.

 

I've been called a Nazi because i made a comment about America having an illegal immigration problem, I got jumped and threatened to be doxxed because i must be against all immigration and therefore a nazi racist.

[Bombastinator]

Just now, Arika S said:

which is true, but not how it gets used the majority of the time these days.

I can't remember the last time i saw a nazi accusation that would have fit into the nazi definition. in most cases it's just a way to try and discredit something someone has said because they dont want to have a conversation about it. Again, they WANT their echo chamber where everyone thinks the way they do, and if they don't, they are a nazi.

 

I've been called a Nazi because i made a comment about America having an illegal immigration problem, I got jumped and threatened to be doxxed because i must be against all immigration and therefore a nazi racist.

I would disagree with he majority of the time.   The popularization of Godwin’s law has made it much less prevalent.  I use it myself only when I see it actually bing done.  I’ve actually used it on this forum twice.  Neo-nazi behavior is becoming much more common.   Just yesterday I watched a man attack a woman at a bus stop while screaming the n-word.  So far as I can tell unprovoked, though from his stance it was clear he felt himself justified.  That’s part of the whole package.  Righteous anger.   

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

My solution is to simply apply that liability to them, and classify them as publishers.

 

Maybe strengthen the laws protecting the rights of the people who make their content.. 

The issue I have is that it doesn't address the free speech,  even making them publishers and liable for all content they host doesn't compel them to host content they disagree with.   Laws that seek to ensure everyone has an equal platform are very hard to balance.   The obvious answer is for the government to setup a digital soap box that is not moderated for content, has no ability to comment on content, cannot be taken down etc. However then all you will have is another dark place with content people want removed because it's an *ism (and in some cases they might well be fair claims like people promoting bleach enemas for autistic children). 

[Tech_Dreamer]

deleting comments like deleting whistle-blowers.

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

It does not "prove" anything, but it does suggest strongly this is not a random.  But the sheer number of similar and worse content that does not get removed suggests if this is being removed (instantly in some cases) that there is a reason which isn't adequately explained by attributing it to a random algorithm .

But that might be survival bias.

I don't know how many comments are posted on youtube, but I'd imagine there are millions upon millions. So even if their filtering works 90% of the time, you still end up with hundreds upon thousands of horrible comments slipping through the cracks.

[mr moose]

50 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

But that might be survival bias.

I don't know how many comments are posted on youtube, but I'd imagine there are millions upon millions. So even if their filtering works 90% of the time, you still end up with hundreds upon thousands of horrible comments slipping through the cracks.

How can an algorithm work only some of the time? I would have thought either it is removing these comments when it scans or it isn't.

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

How can an algorithm work only some of the time? I would have thought either it is removing these comments when it scans or it isn't.

Because the filter isn't as simple as "if a comment contains any of these word it gets filtered". It looks at context, how often something is repeated and things like that.

 

"All Jews should have died in a fire" contains all the same words as the sentence "I wish you all happy holidays! I'm a Christian but I want to spread the holiday joy to everyone, even though who don't celebrate Christmas like Jews. Everyone should have a fun time, and you should cosy up together with the family in front of a fire. And remember that Jesus died for our sins!".

The first should get flagged as offensive. The second one should not. A simple black list of words would always allow the first sentence if the second sentence was allowed. What Youtube does is far more clever. It looks an analysis the content of each comment and categorizes it depending on a wide variety of parameters, including things like "how often has this exact comment been made". That's how Youtube can detect and classify things as spam, even when they don't contain a full URL (but rather might look like this "linus tech tips dot com"). If it was a simple word black list, they would have to ban the words "linus", "tech", "tips", "dot" or "com", which they clearly haven't done.

[Sauron]

10 hours ago, dizmo said:

Well I mean, if it's derogatory, of course it was intentionally inserted. It doesn't matter if it's for or against a certain political party, derogatory is derogatory, it doesn't matter if it goes against what you consider is correct.

Plenty of derogatory terms and phrases aren't manually inserted and don't get picked up. Again, much worse things than this.

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

The obvious answer is for the government to setup a digital soap box that is not moderated for content, has no ability to comment on content, cannot be taken down etc.

Not really, while I don't think companies like YT should have as much power over our information and communication as they do there is no obligation to host and prop up everyone. Free speech just means you can't be legally impugned for saying things in public spaces, not that the government must give you a megaphone. Even then there are exceptions to what you can say - see slander for example.

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I don't know how many comments are posted on youtube, but I'd imagine there are millions upon millions. So even if their filtering works 90% of the time, you still end up with hundreds upon thousands of horrible comments slipping through the cracks.

This type of phrase can't possibly be "learned" by the system as offensive - it must have been manually inserted and I feel like it speaks to the priorities of YT that this was what they put in instead of very common slurs and insults.

4 hours ago, Arika S said:

I've been called a Nazi because i made a comment about America having an illegal immigration problem, I got jumped and threatened to be doxxed because i must be against all immigration and therefore a nazi racist.

I can't speak to the dogpiling but there's no evidence that illegal immigration is a significant problem in the US, if anything I.I.s are better behaved and more productive than the average citizen. The only possible reasons to hold that position are misinformation or xenophobia and while the latter doesn't automatically make you a nazi it sure doesn't help.

 

Also who is this "they" you keep bringing up? Aren't you generalizing in the same way you're accusing "them" of doing?

4 hours ago, Arika S said:

it's just a way to try and discredit something someone has said because they dont want to have a conversation about it. Again, they WANT their echo chamber where everyone thinks the way they do, and if they don't, they are a nazi.

Careful there, wouldn't want to do a hypocrisy now.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

The issue I have is that it doesn't address the free speech,  even making them publishers and liable for all content they host doesn't compel them to host content they disagree with.  

In fact, it would cause the opposite: if these sites were to take full responsibility for everything posted on them, they would become way more trigger-happy when it comes to banning and removing stuff - in fact, they would need some form of pre-approval before posting (like any other publisher), something that's not practical for these platforms to work the way they do.

 

I don't understand why some people seem to advocate giving them a publisher status as a way to address a "too much content policing" problem...

 

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Because the filter isn't as simple as "if a comment contains any of these word it gets filtered". It looks at context, how often something is repeated and things like that.

 

"All Jews should have died in a fire" contains all the same words as the sentence "I wish you all happy holidays! I'm a Christian but I want to spread the holiday joy to everyone, even though who don't celebrate Christmas like Jews. Everyone should have a fun time, and you should cosy up together with the family in front of a fire. And remember that Jesus died for our sins!".

The first should get flagged as offensive. The second one should not. A simple black list of words would always allow the first sentence if the second sentence was allowed. What Youtube does is far more clever. It looks an analysis the content of each comment and categorizes it depending on a wide variety of parameters, including things like "how often has this exact comment been made". That's how Youtube can detect and classify things as spam, even when they don't contain a full URL (but rather might look like this "linus tech tips dot com"). If it was a simple word black list, they would have to ban the words "linus", "tech", "tips", "dot" or "com", which they clearly haven't done.

The OP article claims posts with exact phrases are being deleted, not messages that could mean that.

 

Quote

Comments left under videos or in live streams that contain the words “共匪” (“communist bandit”) or “五毛” (“50-cent party”) are automatically deleted in around 15 seconds

So, it does appear to be very mathematical.

 

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

 

Not really, while I don't think companies like YT should have as much power over our information and communication as they do there is no obligation to host and prop up everyone. Free speech just means you can't be legally impugned for saying things in public spaces, not that the government must give you a megaphone. Even then there are exceptions to what you can say - see slander for example.

 

 

That is what I have been saying.    My comments regarding a government made digital soap box were in response to the idea that equal platforms need to be brought into law.  It was a demonstration of how hard it is to achieve that without creating a whole new slew of problems.

 

 

[LAwLz]

28 minutes ago, Sauron said:

This type of phrase can't possibly be "learned" by the system as offensive - it must have been manually inserted and I feel like it speaks to the priorities of YT that this was what they put in instead of very common slurs and insults.

No, but it can be learned to be spam.

 

I mean, let's think about this rationally for a second.

 

 

Arguments for why this isn't a conspiracy:

1) Youtube isn't even in China, so Chinese people have very limited access to it.

2) Youtube's automatic systems, which this definitely is a part of since comments are deleted within seconds, have not exactly been flawless before.

3) Youtube admits to it being a mistake and will fix it.

 

 

Arguments for why this is a conspiracy:

1) It's about China and "china = bad"?

 

 

Remember Occam's razor. The simplest solution is most likely the right one.

And also remember Hanlon's razor. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

 

I mean really. How often do we have threads about Youtube's algorithm fucking up and incorrectly categorizing or recommending stuff? And yet as soon as something similar happens to something related to China, everyone assumes the system is flawless and works 100% as intended.