What's interesting is that the majority of her speech is discussing the suppression of free expression, saying how "authoritative" sources are given priority, advertiser-friendly videos are rewarded and given priority, and others are suppressed.
You can argue the necessity of those actions, but trying to call those actions examples of free expression is the kind of corporate double-speak that erodes trust.
I find the use of the word suppress to describe what youtube does a bit odd. Now, I am of the opinion that youtube doesn't outright ban most things they find objectionable. That would be suppression (please tell me if I am wrong about this, because otherwise my next few sentences are just fundamentally wrong).
What I see youtube doing is promoting content they like. The video is not itself deleted, its just not promoted (both to users and advertisers). Would you really call that suppression? You can argue its suppression in the sense that when you are so powerful any decision regarding disadvantaging someone is suppression. But I am not totally convinced by that argument, because curating a platform is their entire purpose at this point.
I would agree with you if YouTube had started as a platform that from the beginning publicly promoted videos that were advertiser-friendly, but that's not what they did. For years, their algorithms were tailored only to show users the content that they liked, regardless of advertiser status. They had the goofiest, weirdest stuff perfectly suited to my weird personality. They showed lectures and political discussions that I liked discussing.
Then they made the algorithm changes. Instead of showing me videos I like, they suggest videos they like. Those videos often clash with my values or beliefs, but because they are mainstream, they get pushed anyway ad nauseum.
The change of state in the algorithm could be considered suppression. Another way of looking at it would be just the viewer counts of certain categories of videos has plummeted. Alt-right speakers and lecturers, flat-earthers, trump supporters, racial identitarians, and so on have seen a massive drop in viewers. Right or wrong, that algorithmic change that led to a drop in viewers is a form of suppression.
I want to emphasize that suppression isn't always wrong. A massive site like YouTube has to monitor for violent social contagion and contain that. But I don't think they should then use their suppression as an example of free expression, because it's not.
Edit: also to be absolutely clear here, the definition of "suppression" I'm using is the intentional attempt by YouTube to reduce the viewership and engagement in something.
People differ in their opinions. It's clear that some media should be suppressed, like violent calls to action by powerful people. It's clear that some media shouldn't be suppressed, like videos of puppies. In between lies a vast gray area where it's less clear.
> Who makes that judgement?
People do, particularly influential people who make judgements and have the capacity to illicit the change required. Currently it's set by corporations, but the bounds of that are heavily influenced by and can be superseded by governments. That's why after the 2016 elections, you had all the hearings of the owners and managers of big social media sites.
You'd think there would be at least one person involved with enough self-awareness to say, "You know, maybe we should disable comments and voting on this video."
You'd hope that there wouldn't be a single person involved with such a lack of self-awareness to suggest that a video about a freedom of expression award should have user expression blocked.
Rackspace did similar a few years back when they awarded their CEO with their most fanatical award or whatever it was called. Don't think he stayed at the company for much longer, either.
This right here. Many people say things like “Google would never…”, and they might be right. But that’s not what matters, what matters is people’s beliefs about what Google would do. And this is why Google should have absolutely no influence over your web browser, your programming language, etc. Again, that’s perceived influence, not actual influence. The fear exists regardless.
This is something I've been thinking about. Does anyone avoid Go the way that they avoid other google products? Why or why not? I've been liking it a lot lately as a systems programming language but am not sure how to parse the google side of the equation, as I try to avoid most google offerings
Thanks for this, it is important to consider the trend of company-owned languages and what it means to participate in that. It'll probably knock me off of Go eventually. Unfortunately I don't see many alternatives that have all the benefits I like about go, but I'll keep looking
Go is one of the few Google things that I will actually use and promote.
I completely understand your justified fear of putting so much stake into a company owned language. It is completely reasonable.
But, since Go is only indirectly benefitting Google (as most of their non-ads products do) then I do not feel that using it is contributing anymore to Google's bottom-line or control than visiting an arbitrary website that uses Google Analytics, or using an Android phone, etc. will do.
But, an important discussion for the Go community (and any company-owned language) to have would be one around the hypothetical of Google shutting off it's contributions to the language.
> But, an important discussion for the Go community (and any company-owned language) to have would be one around the hypothetical of Google shutting off it's contributions to the language.
A discussion would not solve the problem. The most Google (for example) could say is “we would never do that”, and then what? What makes this reliable. Google would instead have to change its image so as to not seem arbitrary and capricious in its bannings. Which they can’t.
I thought that it would be obvious that I was referring to a community discussion with or without Google's participation. It should also be obvious that "we would never do that" does not satisfy as a reasonable conclusion to said proposed discussion.
It's rather irritating that a more generous interpretation of my comment was not considered here. Perhaps assume that my comment is not some attack on you or defense of corporate languages but rather an intellectual pursuit of a more nuanced scenario than just "good/bad" judgements?
> I thought that it would be obvious that I was referring to a community discussion
I am sorry for misunderstanding, but it was not obvious to me. Perhaps because I would assume that such a discussion would be useless; if Google stops supporting Go, the language is dead, period.
Yes I do, specifically because it is a google product. I have no interest.
More out of principle than any kind of real reason. I don't want to play any part in google getting its tentacles into yet another part of my computer. I know it makes no real difference either way, but there's something about the idea of 'even the language the app's programmed in is owned by google' that just kinda makes me uncomfortable.
> Does anyone avoid Go the way that they avoid other google products?
Hell yes!
Also: It was dead for me the moment a *giant search engine company* decided naming something with 2 letters is a good idea.
That is either proof of being completely negligent with regards to wasting people's time in terms of making their work more difficult; or it is proof of bragging how good your search engine is.
Neither is a favorable thing to do. And actually probably both apply, people do probably miss a lot of good search results on Go no matter how smart their search engine is.
And you can't force everyone in every nook and cranny of the Internet to spell it "golang".
I've always looked at their "soft projects" like Golang, HTTP3, QUIC and I guess, Mozilla, as purely ways for them to influence technology in ways that profit their motives, rather than contributing for the sake of improving the industry. It's the long game for them, and it seems to be effective.
At least when the Nobel committee awarded the peace prize to Obama before he trotted into the Middle East they have the excuse of not having a crystal ball into the future.
Here despite all evidence to the contrary and its being a commercial endeavor, which entails conflict of interest, they grant this antithesis to freedom of expression an award for freedom of expression. Excuse me if I feel disturbed by their apparent lack of awareness or gross farce.
>At least when the Nobel committee awarded the peace prize to Obama before he trotted into the Middle East they have the excuse of not having a crystal ball into the future.
That's not much of an excuse, typically people wait for after something happens to deliver an award for it.
I agree, but at least they can claim they based it on hope due to promises.
This award, on the contrary, is looking back with an abundance of evidence to the contrary and despite that evidence go on with a complete farce. Even Soviets would put on some pretense of legitimacy.
It is genuinely irksome that an entirely silly comment like this gets more attention and upvotes than numerous downvoted intellectual comments have been receiving on HN over the past year.
Maybe it's just the pandemic or what not but it is very evident that HN has slowly devolved to reddit level discussion since COVID.
And, simply claiming "it's not that bad" does not prove that it is objectively much better.
This comment is higher up and many people don't make it to the bottom of the comments section, meaning it only takes a few downvotes early on to give those comments less attention and lower scores. "freedom" (for lack of a better word) is a controversial topic, so the relatively few people with the power to downvote may try their hands there.
I wouldn't really take this example as some rising trend. jokes are hard to be angry at. controversial topics (regardless of stance and care taken to be impartial, if any) are very easy.
It's a way better title indicating the corporate sponsored nature of the award and the blatant conflict of interest on the award committee and Youtube.
Nothing I said is to suggest a reduced sense of agency or choice for females
Only the sad example this sets that suggests they have to be even more vigilant to shut down bad optics that the divisions they oversee will create or that their parent company might throw onto them, a distraction which is the opposite of privilege
You're suggesting that she was hired in 2014 for inclusivity, and spent the last decade making YT the most popular video streaming website ever.. just to give this "award" in 2021 to crucify her?
Title changed does nothing dang, a youtube free expression award is paradoxical and ironic even before they awarded to themselves and by themselves I mean the CEO
Lol YouTube giving their CEO an award for freedom of expression is just about the most Orwellian thing I’ve seen in a long, long time.
And it seems like they did it without it being a joke which is absurd and scary too. They are so far in their own bubble and echo chamber they have no idea what the real world thinks or cares.
I just did a cursory search. This video was posted a few days ago, but there seems to be zero chatter from American news sites (at least, ones with recognizable names) about it - not even Fox. I'd expect at least some of them to be firing back about "trolls" and "sexists" harassing and insulting Susan Wojcicki, like what happened with [female-protagonist-led Hollywood movie]. The silence is interesting, given the previous narratives. I wonder what's different now.
Aside of the absurd nomination/awards: how come that YouTube is CEO-less company for media?
When FB screws up, Zuck's grim is everywhere in media, but when YouTube does the same orwellian stuff, it's just... YouTube, like there's no person behind it.
87 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 138 ms ] threadBut there is nothing stopping itself from being a joke and tone deaf!
Is there a way an award that is for industry that isnt the Nobel prize for something like this?
"Honors is epaulets. My pop pop taught me that." -RPF
You can argue the necessity of those actions, but trying to call those actions examples of free expression is the kind of corporate double-speak that erodes trust.
What I see youtube doing is promoting content they like. The video is not itself deleted, its just not promoted (both to users and advertisers). Would you really call that suppression? You can argue its suppression in the sense that when you are so powerful any decision regarding disadvantaging someone is suppression. But I am not totally convinced by that argument, because curating a platform is their entire purpose at this point.
Then they made the algorithm changes. Instead of showing me videos I like, they suggest videos they like. Those videos often clash with my values or beliefs, but because they are mainstream, they get pushed anyway ad nauseum.
The change of state in the algorithm could be considered suppression. Another way of looking at it would be just the viewer counts of certain categories of videos has plummeted. Alt-right speakers and lecturers, flat-earthers, trump supporters, racial identitarians, and so on have seen a massive drop in viewers. Right or wrong, that algorithmic change that led to a drop in viewers is a form of suppression.
I want to emphasize that suppression isn't always wrong. A massive site like YouTube has to monitor for violent social contagion and contain that. But I don't think they should then use their suppression as an example of free expression, because it's not.
Edit: also to be absolutely clear here, the definition of "suppression" I'm using is the intentional attempt by YouTube to reduce the viewership and engagement in something.
when is it correct? Who makes that judgement?
People differ in their opinions. It's clear that some media should be suppressed, like violent calls to action by powerful people. It's clear that some media shouldn't be suppressed, like videos of puppies. In between lies a vast gray area where it's less clear.
> Who makes that judgement?
People do, particularly influential people who make judgements and have the capacity to illicit the change required. Currently it's set by corporations, but the bounds of that are heavily influenced by and can be superseded by governments. That's why after the 2016 elections, you had all the hearings of the owners and managers of big social media sites.
But not to assume malevolence ...
It's humorous how the aristocratic class is so much more Marie Antoinette these days.
It's considerably more disheartening to think that there are people out there with this level of power with no fucking connection with reality.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-disliked_YouTube_...
edit: a word
EDIT: Verified, it's not. But it must've been at some point.
This is something I've been thinking about. Does anyone avoid Go the way that they avoid other google products? Why or why not? I've been liking it a lot lately as a systems programming language but am not sure how to parse the google side of the equation, as I try to avoid most google offerings
Well, I do, and I’ve written about it here before¹, but I usually get only downvotes for saying it.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162582 and earlier https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8733705
I completely understand your justified fear of putting so much stake into a company owned language. It is completely reasonable.
But, since Go is only indirectly benefitting Google (as most of their non-ads products do) then I do not feel that using it is contributing anymore to Google's bottom-line or control than visiting an arbitrary website that uses Google Analytics, or using an Android phone, etc. will do.
But, an important discussion for the Go community (and any company-owned language) to have would be one around the hypothetical of Google shutting off it's contributions to the language.
A discussion would not solve the problem. The most Google (for example) could say is “we would never do that”, and then what? What makes this reliable. Google would instead have to change its image so as to not seem arbitrary and capricious in its bannings. Which they can’t.
It's rather irritating that a more generous interpretation of my comment was not considered here. Perhaps assume that my comment is not some attack on you or defense of corporate languages but rather an intellectual pursuit of a more nuanced scenario than just "good/bad" judgements?
I am sorry for misunderstanding, but it was not obvious to me. Perhaps because I would assume that such a discussion would be useless; if Google stops supporting Go, the language is dead, period.
More out of principle than any kind of real reason. I don't want to play any part in google getting its tentacles into yet another part of my computer. I know it makes no real difference either way, but there's something about the idea of 'even the language the app's programmed in is owned by google' that just kinda makes me uncomfortable.
Hell yes!
Also: It was dead for me the moment a *giant search engine company* decided naming something with 2 letters is a good idea.
That is either proof of being completely negligent with regards to wasting people's time in terms of making their work more difficult; or it is proof of bragging how good your search engine is.
Neither is a favorable thing to do. And actually probably both apply, people do probably miss a lot of good search results on Go no matter how smart their search engine is.
And you can't force everyone in every nook and cranny of the Internet to spell it "golang".
Here despite all evidence to the contrary and its being a commercial endeavor, which entails conflict of interest, they grant this antithesis to freedom of expression an award for freedom of expression. Excuse me if I feel disturbed by their apparent lack of awareness or gross farce.
That's not much of an excuse, typically people wait for after something happens to deliver an award for it.
This award, on the contrary, is looking back with an abundance of evidence to the contrary and despite that evidence go on with a complete farce. Even Soviets would put on some pretense of legitimacy.
https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-le...
I don't really have much against Obama (and not like he couldn't accept it), but that was a real "oh brother" moment for me.
Maybe it's just the pandemic or what not but it is very evident that HN has slowly devolved to reddit level discussion since COVID.
And, simply claiming "it's not that bad" does not prove that it is objectively much better.
I wouldn't really take this example as some rising trend. jokes are hard to be angry at. controversial topics (regardless of stance and care taken to be impartial, if any) are very easy.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
The wrong kind of inclusivity, California, tech, Alphabet
Only the sad example this sets that suggests they have to be even more vigilant to shut down bad optics that the divisions they oversee will create or that their parent company might throw onto them, a distraction which is the opposite of privilege
Everyone should have thought twice here and they didn’t
And it seems like they did it without it being a joke which is absurd and scary too. They are so far in their own bubble and echo chamber they have no idea what the real world thinks or cares.
When FB screws up, Zuck's grim is everywhere in media, but when YouTube does the same orwellian stuff, it's just... YouTube, like there's no person behind it.