

We’ve started rolling out features from Jigsaw’s Redirect Method to YouTube. When people search for sensitive keywords on YouTube, they will be redirected towards a playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages.



An update on our commitment to fight terror content online

edit on 7/8/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



I'm sure most of you have heard by now of YouTube's new machine learning strategy to suppress "controversial" videos, by hiding them from the suggestions, disabling ads, disabling likes, comments, etc. What is less discussed is the section of their plan which includes showing videos debunking what ever you search for. This is directly from the Google blog:They say this will be used to "debunk violent extremist messages" but this seems like an extremely weak argument considering YouTube is already packed with videos where people attack the flaws in extremist Islamic belief systems, actually it's those very people YouTube doesn't seem to like very much, which seems highly ironic to me.Yesterday I was watching some political videos from people I like such as Ron Paul and Jordan Peterson and I'm seeing suggested videos in the side bar with names like "Why Ron Paul is an Idiot" or "Why Jordan Peterson is a Man Child". I wasn't really too concerned because I some times like to watch videos with differing opinions and I can just ignore them if I want.However today I'm watching a video from LinusTechTips where they test "Apple's forgotten game console from 1996" and the suggested video "up next" is titled "Why LinusTechTips is Wrong". Seriously... I haven't watched the video so it may be making a legitimate point but come on this is ridiculous. I'm sure Linus is wrong on many occasions but that's much of the fun of watching.This is why this whole machine learning approach worries me... first of all how can it know what should be debunked and what shouldn't? At this point it clearly doesn't have a clue, it's debunking tech channels for Christ sakes. Even if it could be programmed properly to focus on specific issues, what person(s) gets to decide those issues and which side of the debate is true?Especially when it comes to highly subjective topics such as women being less advantaged than men. One of the Google employees recently made the argument that less women will get involved in tech, especially back-end stuff, simply because of personality differences between men and women, just as their are more female hairdressers and more male construction workers.But of course Google has a preconceived notion of what the truth actually is, and that truth is the white male patriarchy is holding women back in the tech sector and they'll debunk any attempt to suggest otherwise. This is an extremely slippery slope especially when you hand over control to algorithms which can easily make mistakes... it's time to stop.