Project Veritas releases Google email, Shapiro, Prager, Peterson referenced

[tall73]

It involves a possibly edited e-mail taken totally out of context, unlike the previous thread which revolved around edited videos taken totally out of context.

Indeed it does. And which also is related to an open conversation with the CEO. I would be glad if they released more of the context. On the other hand, I don't just dismiss what they did release. Because Youtube has been taking actions against their creators for some time in regards to demonetization, removing videos, putting people in a limited state, or just removing people from the platform.

You may not care. I enjoy watching a fair amount of Youtube because I can get long form content, often times with interaction or debate. I don't care for five minute news segments from Fox or MSNBC where they have two people yelling and no one has time to make a point.


I watch progressives, moderate democrats, conservatives, libertarians, etc. to get various views. And almost any channel that is not a major news network is getting actions taken against them because Youtube is editing for content.

That is a free speech issue. And yes, free speech does matter here because Youtube is operating under liability protections as a platform rather than an editorial publisher.

I am not so much interested in this because I love Project Veritas' approach. Their narrative driven videos are annoying, and they release so little context you can't make out what is going on. But I am interested because I care about the topic this regards. And while his stuff is annoying companies often respond to it with information that may clarify.

 

[tall73]

Too bad Vertias didn't release enough context to know what data led to this conclusion. At this point, we'll just have to guess.

I agree.

However, this is hardly the only data point. Creators of all ilks have been talking about how algorithm decisions constantly impact their videos, their livelyhood, and sometimes people's access to their channel.

 

[tall73]

Or in this context, wouldn't he appreciate it if a company improved their product such that it didn't automatically link him with people who have views he would find rather offensive? Seems that's what the out of context quotes from the e-mails are about.

What's the problem, again?

The problem again is Youtubes ongoing removal of content based on ideology or political speech even though they are a platform enjoying liability protections on that basis.

 

[tall73]

Tim Pool has put out a video where he looks at his metrics, and communicated with various other news commentators. The good news is that we can clarify a bit of the statement in the email now based on the data he is seeing. Progressive news producers have also seen reduced auto-play and suggestions.However, they are listing news creators on the homepage more to make up for this.

To me this seems as fair of a solution as possible at the time until they figure out their AI.

Tim Pool however still acknowledges that the email in question does reveal bias, but that in this case it does not bleed into policy. And he indicates that iinternal sources he knows within Google verify that there is bias among employees.

This is another example of how Youtube could help themselves a lot if they just gave more details about changes to the algorithm so content creators know what to expect and understand the rationale.

 

[tall73]

Likely Youtube went with the idea of limiting suggestions in news providers to eliminate the 2 steps to Nazi problem, and also to avoid the sort of negative press such as the recent NY times article talking about recommended videos radicalizing a person.

 

[LoAmmi]

Final Solution, yes.

However, the phrase final solution doesn't have much meaning apart from its historic connotations.

Cultural Bolshevikism was used by Nazis, but the related phrase cultural marxism still has actual meaning apart from that usage. It is those with marxist leanings trying to shape society.

However, the larger issue is that a Google employee stated today in the senate hearings that they don't discriminate against political views. So on what basis can they remove Nazi, Marxist, Libertarian, or any other viewpoint? They are a platform.

I'd prefer a free for all to be honest. Certainly stop stuff that's illegal or obscene, but I'd prefer the nazis be right out in the open.

 

[tall73]

I'd prefer a free for all to be honest. Certainly stop stuff that's illegal or obscene, but I'd prefer the nazis be right out in the open.

That is my view as well. And Youtube, if they force them off the platform, will make it harder for them to be exposed to contrary views. One of the reasons that people debate white supremacists on Youtube is so that they can be included in the algorithmic recommendations.

Youtube is designed to feed you more of what you select. So people who are watching Nazi content are likely to be fed more of it. On the other hand, when people debate those Nazi creators, then it starts suggesting videos of those who debated them as well.

 

[LoAmmi]

That is my view as well. And Youtube, if they force them off the platform, will make it harder for them to be exposed to contrary views. One of the reasons that people debate white supremacists on Youtube is so that they can be included in the algorithmic recommendations.

Youtube is designed to feed you more of what you select. So people who are watching Nazi content are likely to be fed more of it. On the other hand, when people debate those Nazi creators, then it starts suggesting videos of those who debated them as well.

I look at it another way. You don't make ideas go away when you ban them. You actually make them more seductive. It makes it look like forbidden knowledge. When you take these folks, they can go "See, I told you the Jews are in charge of everything! They won't even let us speak!" and more people fall into it. You need to make sure the ideas can come forward, front and center, and that people can then confront those ideas and show them to be wrong.

I remember an instance on this forum where someone who clearly hated Jews was on a rant and I was responding. I was actually making progress from what I could see when the thread was, sadly, locked and the user no longer posted.

 

[tall73]

I look at it another way. You don't make ideas go away when you ban them. You actually make them more seductive. It makes it look like forbidden knowledge. When you take these folks, they can go "See, I told you the Jews are in charge of everything! They won't even let us speak!" and more people fall into it. You need to make sure the ideas can come forward, front and center, and that people can then confront those ideas and show them to be wrong.

I remember an instance on this forum where someone who clearly hated Jews was on a rant and I was responding. I was actually making progress from what I could see when the thread was, sadly, locked and the user no longer posted.

Yes, that is without a doubt true. The Streisand effect is the usual name given. And interest in Alex Jones went up for him after his ban. After crowder's demonetization he got more subscribers. This happens again and again.By the way I am not saying that Alex Jones or Crowder are Nazis. They are just notable examples. And they freely talk about the Streisand effect as well.

Plus, let's say you are convinced of the truth of Progressive Democratic Socialism. This is just an example. You disagree with most conservative notions. If a platform starts banning all the fringe people on the conservative side, then you not only feed the censorship narrative, but you also make it so that people when they search out conservative content only see the most able presenters. Where as on the sides not so impacted you may have those fringe folks still reducing credibility and taking views from the most credible.

Ultimately if you let it play out the more credible will get the views on both sides. But drawing attention to the fringe doesn't help.

And let's face it, sometimes the fringe is right. Before it was made known MK Ultra was a conspiracy theory. Before the Obama administration apologized for it, people would have thought it was crazy that the US government intentionally gave prisoners in Guatemala STD's to study them.

I want to be able to evaluate the information presented and decide whether it is fringe, whether it is poorly supported, whether it is a conspiracy theory, and whether it is worth my time further.

One of the things Jimmy Dore pointed out is that in their policies now Youtube won't let you talk about tragedies where people were hurt and claim they were not. This is apparently aimed at the Alex Jones Sandy hook episode. But it also means that Jimmy Dore may be penalized for questioning whether in fact Syria gassed people, or if this was an attempt to draw the US back into the conflict. Making such arbitrary rules based on prominent cases is dangerous.

 

[LoAmmi]

Yes, that is without a doubt true. The Streisand effect is the usual name given. And interest in Alex Jones went up for him after his ban. After crowder's demonetization he got more subscribers. This happens again and again.By the way I am not saying that Alex Jones or Crowder are Nazis. They are just notable examples. And they freely talk about the Streisand effect as well.

Can I say they are at least Nazi adjacent? Crowder specifically seems pretty fond of Owen Benjamin who has recorded himself going off on rants about how the Nazi camps did not kill people, those people merely worked to death and who has made a lot of claims about the evils that Jews have done. Crowder likes him so much that he's hosted the show when Stephen has been away.

Plus, let's say you are convinced of the truth of Progressive Democratic Socialism. This is just an example. You disagree with most conservative notions. If a platform starts banning all the fringe people on the conservative side, then you not only feed the censorship narrative, but you also make it so that people when they search out conservative content only see the most able presenters. Where as on the sides not so impacted you may have those fringe folks still reducing credibility and taking views from the most credible.

Ultimately if you let it play out the more credible will get the views on both sides. But drawing attention to the fringe doesn't help.

And let's face it, sometimes the fringe is right. Before it was made known MK Ultra was a conspiracy theory. Before the Obama administration apologized for it, people would have thought it was crazy that the US government intentionally gave prisoners in Guatemala STD's to study them.

One of the things Jimmy Dore pointed out is that in their policies now Youtube won't let you talk about tragedies where people were hurt and claim they were not. This is apparently aimed at the Alex Jones Sandy hook episode. But it also means that Jimmy Dore may be penalized for questioning whether in fact Syria gassed people, or if this was an attempt to draw the US back into the conflict. Making such arbitrary rules based on prominent cases is dangerous.

I agree with pretty much all of this.

 

[cow451]

Which "they"s think that?

Them, of course.

 

[tall73]

Can I say they are at least Nazi adjacent? Crowder specifically seems pretty fond of Owen Benjamin who has recorded himself going off on rants about how the Nazi camps did not kill people, those people merely worked to death and who has made a lot of claims about the evils that Jews have done. Crowder likes him so much that he's hosted the show when Stephen has been away.

Well our stance is that you can say it! So sure.

I can't say as I am familiar with all the details, but Crowder and Benjamin had a falling out. Benjamin was attacking Crowder and a number of other figures.

Benjamin claims he was fired. Crowder said he wasn't. It is a strange situation. And Crowder last I heard still seemed to want to be friendly with him, but also said he doesn't agree with various conspiracy theories espoused by Benjamin.

 

[cow451]

Well our stance is that you can say it! So sure.

I can't say as I am familiar with all the details, but Crowder and Benjamin had a falling out. Benjamin was attacking Crowder and a number of other figures.

Benjamin claims he was fired. Crowder said he wasn't. It is a strange situation. And Crowder last I heard still seemed to want to be friendly with him, but also said he doesn't agree with various conspiracy theories espoused by Benjamin.

Did Benjamin go off the rails?

 

[super animator]

Prager and Shapiro are religious Jews, and so do not promote Nazi material.

They promote fascist ideology though.

 

[LoAmmi]

Well our stance is that you can say it! So sure.

I can't say as I am familiar with all the details, but Crowder and Benjamin had a falling out. Benjamin was attacking Crowder and a number of other figures.

Benjamin claims he was fired. Crowder said he wasn't. It is a strange situation. And Crowder last I heard still seemed to want to be friendly with him, but also said he doesn't agree with various conspiracy theories espoused by Benjamin.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't keep around or be friendly with people who espoused the ideas of Benjamin. I get that guilt by association isn't always accurate, but I also don't think trying to keep around racist friends and giving them a platform to say their racism is guilt by association.

 

[LoAmmi]

They promote fascist ideology though.

A question that I'm not sure I know the answer to exactly, but:

Who would Prager and Shapiro dislike more? Me a liberal Jew (who Ben would call an "ethnic Jew") who is a social Democrat or someone like Richard Spencer, a person who pushes for a white ethnostate? I suspect me.

 

[super animator]

A question that I'm not sure I know the answer to exactly, but:

Who would Prager and Shapiro dislike more? Me a liberal Jew (who Ben would call an "ethnic Jew") who is a social Democrat or someone like Richard Spencer, a person who pushes for a white ethnostate? I suspect me.

There is so much dog whistle like (((this))), that is partially comical to me. Like who do they think they are fooling?

 

[variant]

Depends on whether you think that people making various judgements using processes we can't explain is fundamentally different from machines making various judgements using processes we can't explain.

At least the machine software has version control so we can roll back changes that lead to errors.

The only problem I see here is at least one software engineer at google jumping to at least one conclusion they probably should not have.

Rushing to judgment and jumping to conclusions being particularly regular human characteristics.

Hopefully the people reading the article won't do that either with so little info.

 

[variant]

Agreed, but the AI is programed by people who do. And if they are editing content in regards to ideology thy may forfeit protections as a platform.

Why would that matter? Are we treating you-tube and the internet at large like a public utility now?

Because I don't remember that particular law or debate.

You also seem to be assuming that you can program an algorithm or AI to simply do what you want ideologically. I am not sure that is true.

 

[DanishLutheran]

Now does someone want to explain how Jordan Peterson is a Nazi dog whistler? I don't get that one.

Because he isn't a "liberal". To such types, simply disagreeing with them, is the same as being a nazi.