[HN Gopher] YouTube approves ad by Belarusian gov with journalis...
___________________________________________________________________
YouTube approves ad by Belarusian gov with journalist from hijackd
Ryanair plane
Author : notimetocry
Score : 432 points
Date : 2021-05-25 20:14 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| hardlianotion wrote:
| Disgraceful
| IAmEveryone wrote:
| I don't get these "confession" videos. Not only is it usually
| obvious that they are coerced, either by the person's demeanour
| or obvious signs of violence. They are such a trope of
| dictatorships it wouldn't even be possible to broadcast the most
| truthful of any such confession video without looking suspicious.
| Indeed the very act of humiliating your enemies in public is
| incompatible with the idea of democracy.
|
| So, what gives? Is it supposed to demonstrate the regime's
| ability to break you? Do these dictatorships just suck at PR as
| much as they suck at other aspects of governing?
| bjornsing wrote:
| I suspect it's meant to deter opponents and fool the loyal
| base, both at the same time. I wouldn't be surprised if it's
| effective, at both objectives.
| watwut wrote:
| It shows power. If you do a he did, this will happen to you.
| All with plausible deniality. If allows for many bad faith
| arguments.
| [deleted]
| saba2008 wrote:
| It is supposed to induce terror and thus compliance in
| population.
|
| >incompatible with the idea of democracy
|
| So is Belarusian regime.
|
| >suck at PR
|
| Do concentration camp administration suck at PR? Beating random
| prisoners to death for no reason is quite efficient way of
| keeping people under control.
|
| But if Lukashenka gets torn to bloody pieces by the crowd -
| then yes, he did suck at PR indeed.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| The point is to flex their power while still maintaining a
| veneer of deniability. Everyone _knows_ what 's going on, but
| their supporters will still use it as a pretext to argue that
| nothing is wrong.
|
| It's the same reason Israel claims that every building they
| level in Gaza is a military target.
|
| It's the same reason cops in the US cite noncompliance as a
| justification for violence.
|
| It's the same reason Republicans allege voter fraud when they
| make laws to suppress millions of votes.
|
| Authoritarians will never, ever, _ever_ admit "we're
| dictators" or "this is about power". They will always have an
| excuse for it.
| RhodoGSA wrote:
| >Is it supposed to demonstrate the regime's ability to break
| you.
|
| 1984 did it first.
| superjan wrote:
| Some people may be fooled, but more importantly, if you are an
| ally of the regime it helps you to an alternative story (fairy
| tale) that you can claim to believe in, and then pressure
| others to act on the premisse that the fairy tale is true.
| rodgerd wrote:
| Precisely. It becomes a talking point, whether for true
| believers in support of the current Belarussian regime or its
| allies, or useful idiots; one of the challenges of an open
| society is how to move without becoming hopelessly bogged
| down in bad-faith argumentation: "skeptical
| environmentalists", pro-tobacco fake science, or the latest
| push from apparently Russian-based PR agencies to pay
| influencers for an astroturf campaign against vaccination.
| httpsterio wrote:
| Plausible deniability
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| This does not seem to work with classical music, though.
| Probably because there is more money at stake.
| smoldesu wrote:
| His face is very obviously covered in makeup, it's almost
| glaringly apparent that he's been abused heavily.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| That's the point of these videos I would say.
| [deleted]
| twirlock wrote:
| Maybe the western intelligentsia doesn't want to assert too many
| standards what will come back to bite it. [I'm just kidding. They
| obviously don't give a shit about that.]
| vbezhenar wrote:
| I saw ad which called on storming government building in
| Kazakhstan at the day of the elections. It was on Youtube and I
| saw it twice with few days in-between. I sent a report first
| time.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Why?
| thanatos519 wrote:
| I've been thinking that the most appropriate response to this
| situation is to send an extraction team to rescue him.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| He's Belarusian citizen. Why do you want to rescue him? There
| are thousands of people in a similar situation all over the
| world. What about sending a team to UK to rescue Assange?
| 746487482 wrote:
| Citizenship does not imply loyalty to a government. I live in
| the UK and would fully support anyone rescuing Assange and
| everyone else in a similar situation, as long as they do it
| carefully and don't start a war.
| zionic wrote:
| I'm not sure we can count on the governments that keep JA
| rotting in prison to rescue a journalist.
| thanatos519 wrote:
| Did I say anything about governments? Let's crowdfund it.
| throwaway803453 wrote:
| The likelihood of collateral damage makes this a bad idea.
| It's better just to sanction all gov't officials (e.g.,
| refuse to let them travel outside of Belarus, cancel their
| Netflix, etc.), until he is released.
| pjc50 wrote:
| This reminds me of when Mark Thatcher tried to crowdfund a
| coup in guinea and failed spectacularly. https://en.m.wikip
| edia.org/wiki/2004_Equatorial_Guinea_coup_...
|
| (It is of course illegal to crowdfund coup attempts and
| jailbreaks in foreign countries, although whether a
| prosecution takes place is entirely political)
| mc32 wrote:
| That reminds me of the guys who popped Carlos Ghosn from
| Japan. Lesson is don't do it. It's against the law even
| if you think it's the right thing.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| You want to crowdfund sending paramilitary operatives into
| a foreign country, an act of war. Got it. What could go
| wrong?
| H8crilA wrote:
| Imagine thinking that money solves such problems.
|
| Who are you going to pay for that? Your neighbor Joey, he
| will go and perform an intelligence operation in a foreign
| country? Or maybe some professional CIA-as-a-service
| corporation?
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| I might go. But I'm not sure an out of shape balding
| programmer would be much help.
|
| It's appealing to try to help this person, though. Maybe
| other people feel the same.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| For sure I do.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| The main problem is that a paramilitary group (us) has a
| disadvantage vs a government agency (them). They have the
| people, the equipment, and the home territory. There's
| also the language barrier; most of the people we'd
| recruit wouldn't be able to blend in, which is crucial
| for an op like this.
|
| There's also the question of logistics. It would be hard
| to transport weapons across country borders. The most
| likely way to do it might be to start the op in a
| neighboring country. But if you want to drive, you'll
| probably be stopped at a checkpoint. Walking isn't very
| appealing. I suppose you could parachute in, Fortnite-
| style, but that's pushing the boundaries of
| believability. Plus that Mig they sent to intercept the
| civilian plane might have a few things to say about that.
|
| That poor guy. I wish there was something to do for him.
| [deleted]
| squarefoot wrote:
| > Imagine thinking that money solves such problems.
|
| Money (ie, power) creates and solves such problems; it
| just doesn't do that under the sun.
| bagacrap wrote:
| you act as if you've never watched a heist movie
| glogla wrote:
| > Or maybe some professional CIA-as-a-service
| corporation?
|
| Actually I'm pretty sure there are PCMs who could handle
| it.
|
| Crowdfunding mercenaries to go against nation states
| would be very cyberpunk.
| midasuni wrote:
| An actual useful reason for crypto (other than money
| laundering)
| glogla wrote:
| Yeah it's not like you were going ask Shadowrunners for a
| refund.
| rodgerd wrote:
| I mean Mark Prince has shown that he and his family's
| companies are happy to murder for hire. That's probably a
| good starting point if you want killers that operate with
| at the support of a major Western government.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| It's been done:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Wings_of_Eagles
| rjsw wrote:
| Money seemed to be enough to get Carlos Ghosn out of
| Japan [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Ghosn#Flight_fro
| m_Japan
| silexia wrote:
| Better solution: assassinate Lukashenko and all his henchmen.
| Put the fear of god in every dictator worldwide.
| smallstepforman wrote:
| Snowden? Assagne?
| [deleted]
| josephcsible wrote:
| This sounds like a good way to start a nuclear war with
| Russia.
| retrac wrote:
| While Lukashenko may not, some of those dictators have the
| effective power to assassinate Western leaders in
| retaliation. I'm really not sure we want to open that can of
| worms.
|
| It'll also blow right up in our face in terms of the desired
| effect. In many cases, I figure doing that would actually
| boost support for the regime. Many dictators are ruling right
| now on nationalist sentiment -- "I may be a thug but I am
| strong and I keep our nation safe from the Americans [or
| whoever]". Bumping them off will not exactly dispel that
| myth. If they survive, or if power transfers stably to their
| second-hand-man or woman, they can now portray themselves and
| their nation as besieged by hostile foreign powers which will
| stoop as low as assassination to manipulate the nation's
| destiny for their ulterior objectives. (The best propaganda,
| after all, is the truth.)
| baybal2 wrote:
| > While Lukashenko may not
|
| Anybody can assassinate just anybody. Even heads of G7 can
| only afford security barely enough to defend against lone
| attacker with a battalion sized force constantly following
| them.
|
| It's just they don't want to because they are afraid.
| retrac wrote:
| Well yes, probably. But pulling it off as an operation
| with a reasonably high chance of success in another
| country seems like something restricted to the largest
| nations which maintain operating ability in the target
| nation. But then again, maybe Canada or Australia really
| could take out the Prime Minister of Denmark or Japan on
| a week's notice if they wanted to. I'm no expert on the
| abilities of the spooks and their like.
|
| Though if we start playing this game, it wouldn't be long
| before even the Icelandic leader has an armed guard 24/7.
| It's not just fear of direct consequences -- it's also a
| fairly healthy respect, even by many authoritarian
| regimes, for the same sort of international norms that
| allow us to have embassies between nations.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| I face palm pretty much every time any US administration,
| Democratic or Republican, makes statements about Venezuela.
| Seems like every single time it only makes things worse and
| gives whoever is running the place into the ground at the
| moment something external to point to as being the source
| of the people's misery. The desire to "do something" is
| strong and hard to resist but often is counterproductive.
| croes wrote:
| Ruling with fear? That's what dictators do.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| What happens in the ensuing power vacuum? See: The US in
| Iraq, Libya post-Ghaddafi, etc
|
| It also sends a very strong message to Putin that the US may
| not want to send
| baybal2 wrote:
| > What happens in the ensuing power vacuum?
|
| What a heck is that "power vacuum?" I never managed to
| comprehend the mechanics of Western thought process
| arriving to that philosophical concept.
|
| > It also sends a very strong message to Putin that the US
| may not want to send
|
| You want to send this message. You want Putin to be
| intimidated, and scared, and not laughing at you in the
| face.
|
| Very massive intimidation. Gaddafi's intimate encounter
| with a bayonet type of one.
|
| It will be also a message of unity, for the world to see
| that the West can still Desert Storm any Hitler wannabe
| like was in time when the West was big, and menacing, and
| not the other way around.
| djxfade wrote:
| Disgusting. Google should be ashamed. Dirty money
| [deleted]
| albertop wrote:
| I wonder how much time before whataboutism comments will show up.
| bosswipe wrote:
| About half an hour after your comment
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27283200
| mhoad wrote:
| I mean you're getting down voted and yet at the same time there
| is literally another front page thread on the exact same topic
| filled with Greenwald fanboys doing exactly this.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Declaring "whataboutism" has become more of a fallacy than
| actual "whataboutism" could ever be.
| RhodoGSA wrote:
| Had to google whataboutism, which sent me into a fallacy
| wiki-hole. Only then could i come back, understand and laugh
| at your comment lol.
|
| After some thinking it seems a lack of authority on what
| 'Truly' constitutes a logical fallacy during a conversation,
| but claiming the other is using a fallacy is a fallacy in
| it's own right. May I suggest Fallaception?
| infamouscow wrote:
| I think the problem is people cry whataboutism as a way of
| silencing dissenting opinions rather than engaging in a
| discussion rebutting the premise(s).
| kbelder wrote:
| It reminds me of calling 'slippery slope' on an argument.
| Slippery slope arguments are sometimes fallacious, and
| sometimes very pertinent. You actually have to use reason to
| distinguish the two scenarios, not just use pattern
| recognition to try to spot a match to a list of fallacies.
|
| Lots of people using 'what about' are doing so to try to make
| reasonable comparisons between two cases. Lots of people do
| it to avoid blame or confuse the argument. You have to
| actually read to figure out which it is.
| infamouscow wrote:
| Not only will you have to read, you'll also have to think
| critically.
| croes wrote:
| The times were simpler when you could judge people by their
| actions and not have to ask who did it beforehand.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| "Content Reviewer Earning $5 a Day in The Philippines isn't Aware
| of Geopolitical Situation on Foreign Continent"
| dougSF70 wrote:
| YouTube's profiteering from this is sickening.
| notimetocry wrote:
| The ad shows the journalist Roman Protasevich "confessing" that
| he is being treated well and he has no complaints. However, he
| looks beaten and scared.
| tyingq wrote:
| They are also showing parts of the video, outside of the ad,
| where he "confesses" to organizing mass riots[1]. I'm guessing
| that's the bit he was beaten into submission for.
|
| Close up of his forehead:
| https://archive.is/bYKJt/0961300a066abefe7e7cea32db259ef162c...
|
| [1]https://archive.is/bYKJt
| varispeed wrote:
| There is this saying "pecunia non olet". Google do support
| different questionable agendas as long as it suits them
| financially.
| zokier wrote:
| HN frontpage is the best support route for goog services. I'll
| guess the issue will now be addressed within 24 hours.
|
| I wished I was joking.
| tehwebguy wrote:
| My experience is that YouTube only budges when a major
| newspaper publishes an article.
| [deleted]
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Is it true, though? It seems easy to make this up, and get
| everyone riled up.
|
| But it seems like it could be true, too. I'm just wondering how
| to verify.
| brutal_chaos_ wrote:
| Regardless, being here will get Google's attention, which is
| what I believe OP was getting at.
| alkonaut wrote:
| "Don't be evil"
| ccsnags wrote:
| list_name.remove(Don't)
| varispeed wrote:
| "Don't be evil" (it's our job)
| underseacables wrote:
| YouTube has never shied away from monetizing human rights abuses.
| I guess this is no different.
|
| Before watching this video of a journalist who was kidnapped and
| possibly tortured to give you this false statement, here's an ad
| about liberty mutual life insurance. Liberty!
| hanniabu wrote:
| Likewise with animal rights abuse. There's tons of channel that
| make a living off abusing animals
| dilyevsky wrote:
| Possibly? Look at his face
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| Frankly it's stuff like this that gives me pause about ever
| working at a company like Google. It's truly disgusting.
| croes wrote:
| Name any big company that values human rights over money.
| It's gonna be a short list.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| Many big companies at least understand the cost of bad PR.
| uh_uh wrote:
| I'm not trying to defend Google here but could it be the
| case that they're simply not aware of the issue, or rather
| the issue didn't reach the appropriate people within the
| organisation who can get these ads removed?
|
| I don't know how much Google is profiting from the
| Belarusian government, but unless it's a lot, I doubt
| Google would _insist_ on keeping these ads.
|
| The above of course doesn't excuse Google's mismanagement
| of the situation, but doing something bad out of
| incompetence is a different kind of failure (with different
| remedies necessary) than doing the same out of greed.
| brutal_chaos_ wrote:
| I'm still looking and almost homeless. Our corporate
| culture is rotten to the core.
| _carbyau_ wrote:
| My wife is part way through an MBA. One course is
| "corporate ethics". When she told me, I laughed so
| hard...
| layer8 wrote:
| Sounds like a good reason not to work for a big company
| then.
| ronsor wrote:
| I dislike a lot of Google's practices as much as the next
| guy, but this is literally just a case of "nobody paying
| serious attention" rather than outright malice. We all
| (should) know that moderation at Google is mostly black-box
| bots that may or may not work properly.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It was an interesting experience.
|
| I went in assuming someone's in charge, but honestly, most of
| the mistakes Google makes are in the category "nobody's in
| charge." They operate at a scale where everyone tries to use
| them to do _everything._ That 's everything good and
| everything bad. They've been both a force for normalizing
| LGBTQ identity and a force against it, a mass communication
| tool and a mass oppression tool, a platform to help people
| and a platform to stalk people. They actively manage,
| observe, maintain, and regulate only a subset of the space of
| uses their tools allow.
|
| This is explanation, not excuse. I'm not there anymore
| because I think it _should_ be their responsibility to take
| responsibility reflective of their size and impact. I lost
| faith that the leadership agreed.
|
| In this specific example, my assumption from personal priors
| is they let this ad in because there's nobody in charge of
| negative-filtering ads like this until complaints come, and
| in the absence of policy the default policy is "allow." They
| have categories to catch ads for illegal substances, various
| forms of illegal activity, and so on, but "A state-level
| actor will use our ad platform to paint a false message of
| the status of a political prisoner" is a new one for them.
| mleonhard wrote:
| If it looks like nobody in Google is in charge, it's only
| because the execs refuse to take action and the board
| refuses to properly incentivize the execs.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| And perhaps importantly: the board _can 't_ incentivize
| the execs. Not alone.
|
| Alphabet is still majority-owned by the founders as of
| 2019. In practice, the board is advisory; 100% of the
| board who's names aren't "Larry Page" and "Sergey Brin"
| could vote the same on an issue, and the issue will carry
| in whatever direction Larry and Sergey say it should if
| both agree.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| "The board" is Larry and Sergey, from a realistic voting
| power standpoint. All of this is ultimately their fault.
| philsnow wrote:
| > I'm not there anymore because I think it should be their
| responsibility to take responsibility reflective of their
| size and impact. I lost faith that the leadership agreed.
|
| I fully agree with you, and I don't think that there's any
| going back: the founders don't care about this, a CEO
| generally only takes a principled stand on things like this
| when it's their baby, but Google is not Sundar's baby.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| "Don't be Evil" is outdated. Now it's "Do the right thing".
| zibzab wrote:
| Do the right thing
|
| To get us another deal
|
| Sometimes it's a bit evil
|
| Sometimes just a bit shady
|
| And don't you ever worry
|
| If we cancel anything it will be Hangsout, Play Music,
| Timely and Poly
| MichaelMoser123 wrote:
| new sloagan for Google: "we make money out of bloggers ....
| in any capacity".
| Tade0 wrote:
| Suddenly the JSON license doesn't appear that problematic.
| 746487482 wrote:
| It still appears as problematic as ever to me because a
| judge is pretty much the last person I would trust to
| decide what is and isn't evil.
|
| I can't even imagine how a hypothetical well-intentioned
| judge who wanted to apply that provision correctly would
| proceed. The judge would basically have to choose between
| imposing their own personal view on good and evil or
| declaring the provision nonjusticiable.
|
| Maybe the license could include a mandatory arbitration
| clause with an arbitrator who shares the author's values,
| but that still sounds like a terrible idea.
| bjohnson225 wrote:
| That just invites the question "for who?".
| Aunche wrote:
| It seems like preemptively complaining about downvoted, somehow
| increases your karma, so inb4 I get downvoted for being a
| "shill".
|
| This is the kind of reactionary attitude that causes YouTube to
| tune its moderation algorithms to be overly err on the side of
| demonetizing. Later, even more people will complain that their
| favorite YouTuber is being demonetized. Everyone has their own
| brilliant ideas of perfect moderation, but at the end of the
| day, they would never be willing to accept that responsibility
| themselves and the blowback that comes with it. See the
| grandstanding that occured during the section 230 Congressional
| hearings as a perfect example.
|
| Why can't YouTube simply just make a mistake and correct for
| it? When governments failed to protect a plane from forcibly
| escorted, I don't are seeking a private business to fix all the
| world's geopolitical issues.
| Farfromthehood wrote:
| At least the family has some proof of life. Maybe the videos
| can help push for his release.
|
| Although I'm sure these aren't the reasons YouTube approved the
| ad(s).
| gipp wrote:
| I get responding to this with something like "YouTube's
| processes are broken." What doesn't make sense is "YouTube is
| happy to profit off human rights abuses."
|
| YT must deal with probably hundreds of new ads a day. They
| stand to gain nearly nothing from running this particular ad,
| and stand to lose quite a lot, even from a pure corporate-self-
| interest perspective. Which is more likely: that YT said "screw
| human rights abuses, gimme the cash" in full knowledge of what
| was going on, or that some contractor who had already reviewed
| a dozen that day and maybe hasn't even seen the news articles
| clicked a button without proper due diligence, and YT hadn't
| factored "what if a developed nation's government openly
| advertises human rights abuses" into its oversight processes?
| xwolfi wrote:
| Yeah but you know it's hard to defend when they take money,
| show a tortured confession, don't reply to signal, then act
| as sorry pikachus years later when Belarus, so emboldened by
| western impotence, just pretends there are terrorist attacks
| just to arrest one journalist
| henadzit wrote:
| Belta (the state news agency) was using YouTube for propaganda
| for almost a year since the protests in 2020 in Belarus. Videos
| of "confessions" by beaten protestors were very common. I'm not
| sure how much the government spends on ads but you can hardly
| watch anything on YouTube without stumbling into a propaganda
| video.
| smallstepforman wrote:
| How is this any different from State sponsored propaganda from
| Western governments?
| 746487482 wrote:
| It includes a hostage. I don't care about the message of the
| video as long as its subject participates voluntary.
|
| It's like an execution video. YouTube shouldn't show it
| because it's degrading to the victim.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| Other than the fact that almost everything is different?
| chesusfingkrist wrote:
| Whataboutism is not helpful in any way, and you should feel
| bad for not appreciating that (regardless of you deliberately
| trolling or not.)
| njovin wrote:
| I assume that participants in the videos sponsored by Western
| governments have not been detained/kidnapped and coerced (or
| worse).
| eptcyka wrote:
| I've not seen Western states using videos of tortured
| hostages to signal boost their propaganda channels. I think
| this is a significant difference, don't you think?
| qwertox wrote:
| I mostly share your view on this, but don't forget that
| when our TV stations show on repeat how our cops are
| beating Antifa members in demonstrations, that this has
| also the same chilling effect on us. They are usually
| followed by interviews from higher-ups in the police force
| who then frame their view of things. Also, you don't see
| them followed by interviews from Antifa members, which
| _might_ have something just as valid to say.
|
| It is a different thing, but there are similarities.
| saba2008 wrote:
| Counter question. How is this any different from videos of
| beheadings by ISIS and skinnings by narco cartels?
| morelisp wrote:
| People often ask what a union could do for tech employees given
| they are already extremely well-compensated.
|
| One key thing would be to stop bullshit like this.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| I agree in principle, but the connection between a hypothetical
| union and the approving particular ads is tenuous. I can see
| the argument for letting engineers resist being told to build
| unethical systems, but approving ads is a general policy
| decision engineers wouldn't ordinarily have control over. If
| they swing their weight around on that, there's basically
| nothing that's off limits, and I don't know if that's the right
| way to go about this problem.
| dhanna wrote:
| I really wish there was an electoral system of some sorts .
| asquabventured wrote:
| How does a union help stop a foreign dictator from buying ads?
| croes wrote:
| Unions don't stop dictators from buying, but can stop
| companies from selling to dictators.
| elihu wrote:
| "If you don't stop doing this, many of your employees won't
| come to work tomorrow" seems like something that could cause
| a large company to change its policies.
| wnevets wrote:
| If YouTube didn't approve the AD would that be considered "Big
| Tech" using their monopoly to censor free speech?
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-25 23:00 UTC)