Althouse: "[O]ver 300 [Trump] ads were taken down by Google and YouTube, mostly over the summer, for violating company policy."

December 2, 2019

"[O]ver 300 [Trump] ads were taken down by Google and YouTube, mostly over the summer, for violating company policy."

"But the archive doesn't detail what policy was violated. Was it copyright violation? A lie or extreme inaccuracy? Faulty grammar? Bad punctuation? It's unclear. The ads determined to be offending are not available to be screened. We found very little transparency in the transparency report. 'As you know, conservatives think that you discriminate against them,' Stahl tells YouTube's [CEO] Wojcicki, who replies: 'Well, first of all there are lots of very successful conservative creators on YouTube... Our systems, our algorithms, they don't have any concept of understanding what's a Democrat, what's a Republican...."

From 60 Minutes Overtime.

There's video of the "60 Minutes" segment at the link, but I can't get embedding code there, so I'm going to have to go to YouTube to look for usable video. Ah! Here:

42 comments:

rhhardin said...: It's like baking a cake for a gay wedding.; 12/2/19, 4:55 AM
Big Mike said...: Can we assume the violated policy is “Orange Man Bad”?; 12/2/19, 4:55 AM
rhhardin said...: Normally, the systems and algorithms deleting Trump ads would be a sign that the systems and algorithms are wrong.; 12/2/19, 4:56 AM
rhhardin said...: Nobody should be exposed to Trump's take on anything.

A division of that's not funny, inc.; 12/2/19, 4:58 AM
BUMBLE BEE said...: And so it is with Dennis Prager's videos. Liberals are bystanders... don't wanna get involved.; 12/2/19, 5:18 AM
BUMBLE BEE said...: ACLU... crickets.; 12/2/19, 5:21 AM
BUMBLE BEE said...: No Daniel Patrick Monahans out there either.; 12/2/19, 5:22 AM
wendybar said...: When you are losing, you do whatever you can to stop the opponent. The media has been in bed with the Democrats, so you are surprised by this???; 12/2/19, 5:50 AM
Michael P said...: One of the oldest tricks in AI -- in the general sense, not merely deep learning -- is called unsupervised learning. The basic idea is that the computer can figure out on its own which inputs are similar to each other, and how to distinguish those. The programmer does not need to label "what's a Democrat, what's a Republican"; they just need to give the system a relatively few examples of which are good and which are bad, and the computer can extend those judgments across the groups that the computer identified.

If YouTube does not use any kind of unsupervised learning or other clustering in its policy enforcement code, I would eat my hat. (Full disclosure: I do not usually wear a hat -- out of preference, not because I already ate it.) I would also bet that Google's systems and algorithms do have clusters that closely correspond to Democrats and Republicans, and Wojcicki's statement is meant more narrowly than its natural understanding.; 12/2/19, 5:56 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: YouTube's and Google's removals of Republican advertising are in-kind contributions to the Democratic Party.

Making in-kind contributions to a political party should have some economic, taxation and legal consequences.

YouTube and Google are private enterprises that can limit their content, but when those limitations constitute in-kind contributions in political elections, then those private organizations should bear the due consequences.; 12/2/19, 6:09 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/2/19, 6:14 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: When private organizations make in-kind contributions in political elections and those contributions are above certain values, then such contributions are supposed to be revealed to the electorate.

Google and YouTube should reveal to the public the details of their pro-Democrat, anti-Republican, in-kind contributions.; 12/2/19, 6:14 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: Why is the electorate supposed to accept "algorithms" as a satisfactory justification for the removal of advertising that favors our President Trump.

Let the public see the advertising that was removed.

Let the public see the "algorithms" that removed the advertising.

Were the algorithms reasonable and politically neutral?

What was the value of such advertising?

If the removals of the advertising were not reasonable and politically neutral and if the value of the removed advertising exceeded certain amounts, then Google and YouTube themselves should admit that the removals were in-kind contributions to the Democratic Party and should bear the consequences of any in-kind contributions in elections.; 12/2/19, 6:22 AM
gilbar said...: rhhardin said...
Normally, the systems and algorithms deleting Trump ads would be a sign that the systems and algorithms are working EXACTLY AS WRITTEN
fify!; 12/2/19, 6:23 AM
gilbar said...: Mike Sylwester said...
Why is the electorate supposed to accept "algorithms" as a satisfactory justification for the removal of advertising that favors our President Trump.

Like the nazi said; "Our algorithms don't pick on Juden! We send ANY FAMILY where the father is circumcised and wears a yarmulke to the death camps"; 12/2/19, 6:27 AM
Temujin said...: Google/You Tube has a way to go to catch up to the Chinese, but they're getting there quickly. Chinese Algorithms

Anyone who has spent 5 minutes watching a video from Prager U knows that they are very informative and not hate language. Yet they are banned on You Tube because....?? They use facts instead of feelings to point out why some of our social ills are social ills.; 12/2/19, 6:46 AM
gilbar said...: Yet they are banned on You Tube because they use facts instead of feelings to point out why some of our social ills are social ills.
fify!

As Jo Biden often said: "We Choose TRUTH over Facts!"
and, as we All Know TRUTH MEANS PRAVDA; 12/2/19, 7:07 AM
daskol said...: rhhardin, the kind of bias that needs to be fought in AI is different from what you would assume. the correctness they're after is at least partly political. when AIs begin to replicate known and unacceptable human biases, with the emphasis on unacceptable, that's when we're in trouble, according to this PR release/article from IBM research on the dangers of bias in AI. worth reading.

if the tech were not already so democratized, with data science libraries now so available and easy to configure that anybody who had the skills to build a website 20 years ago can build and train a statistical model (facilitating thousands of data analytics/AI/machine learning startups), this would be chilling. as things stand, it's probably a good indicator that Watson will continue to be primarily a terrific marketing gimmick with severe challenges delivering utility in real world applications. whether deep learning of which Watson is capable, or the simpler supervised learning, there is always a need for the scientist or programmer or tinkerer to put his thumb on the scale--to counteract the inevitable data-driven or algorithm/technique driven bias with their own, hopefully more informed bias. if IBM wants to make its AI stupider, that's an opportunity for me and others who compete with them in the various niches in which they market Watson capabilities.; 12/2/19, 7:27 AM
daskol said...: this is my favorite part of that article/press release. teaching the machines not to be so racist is going to teach us not to be so damned racist.

As AI systems find, understand, and point out human inconsistencies in decision making, they could also reveal ways in which we are partial, parochial, and cognitively biased, leading us to adopt more impartial or egalitarian views. In the process of recognizing our bias and teaching machines about our common values, we may improve more than AI. We might just improve ourselves.; 12/2/19, 7:32 AM
Michael K said...: Why is the electorate supposed to accept "algorithms" as a satisfactory justification for the removal of advertising that favors our President Trump.

Most LIVs don't know what an "algorithm" is.

Something Arab probably.; 12/2/19, 7:34 AM
daskol said...: I love this ad.; 12/2/19, 7:37 AM
MikeR said...: "Our systems, our algorithms, they don't have any concept of understanding what's a Democrat, what's a Republican...."
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
If you have a rule that flags "transgender people have the same gender as their DNA" as hate speech, you don't need to tell the algorithm to flag Republicans.; 12/2/19, 7:41 AM
Amadeus 48 said...: I don't believe anything these people say.; 12/2/19, 8:07 AM
Limited blogger said...: They talk about 'conservatives' like they are some kind of strange animal out in the wilderness. Have either of these two women ever met a 'conservative'?; 12/2/19, 8:14 AM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: Republicans die in darkness.; 12/2/19, 8:37 AM
Darrell said...: Look how many Democrats had 300 ads taken down.
Wait. There are none?
How about a hundred ads?
None?
How about five?

The Sodom and Gomorrah argument with God went about the same way.; 12/2/19, 9:01 AM
Howard said...: I see you're still complaining that your side failed to take an active role in participating in social media technology and other forms of modern free market Enterprise commerce that influences how people behave.

You all sound like the blacks that you decry for asking for reparations. You are blaming it all on liberal privilege. The irony is hilarious.; 12/2/19, 9:12 AM
Marty Keller said...: I see Howard is standing in for Inga in today's ritual display of Left illogic/ignorance/self-deceit.

". . . your side failed to take an active role in participating in social media technology and other forms of modern free market Enterprise commerce that influences how people behave."

As James Taranto would say: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!; 12/2/19, 10:20 AM
Michael McNeil said...: Most LIVs don't know what an “algorithm” is.

Something Arab probably.

Indeed! “Al-Khwarizmi” was the original Arabic word (name): more fully, Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khwarizmi, ca. 780 – ca. 850 A.D., an ethnic Persian writing in Arabic.; 12/2/19, 10:26 AM
Howard said...: Marty confirms target hit with secondaries.; 12/2/19, 10:35 AM
Martin said...: You can tell she's lying because her lips are moving.; 12/2/19, 10:39 AM
SGT Ted said...: "I see you're still complaining that your side failed to take an active role in participating in social media technology and other forms of modern free market Enterprise commerce that influences how people behave."

Actually, they are taking an active role in it, creating content and building followings which have become popular enough to generate significant revenue for the creators.

Hipster fascists like you are actively shutting them down using bullshit declarations of racistsexistbigothomophobiawhitesupremacistNazis if the opinions expressed don't fall in line with the Maoist cultural extremists who now run Google, etc.

How about your side stop acting like Maoists and Soviet Communists when it comes to dissenting speech? Or is that too much to ask?; 12/2/19, 10:39 AM
NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...: Michael K said...

Most LIVs don't know what an "algorithm" is.

Something Arab probably.

They think it relates to a former VP's ability to dance!; 12/2/19, 11:06 AM
Howard said...: Sgt Ted. Create your own infrastructure. You just confirmed that conservatives are parasites on infrastructure created built grown and expanded by the librul elites you hate and can't compete with.; 12/2/19, 11:32 AM
SGT Ted said...: It used to be the people who "created the infrastructure" didn't like LGBTQ people, or minorities and used their economic and social power to oppress them by suppressing their speech and suppressing their participation in the common culture.

It's the same conduct, Howard, just different targets.

You've just confirmed you're completely cool with totalitarian conduct directed at people you oppose, Howard.; 12/2/19, 12:33 PM
SGT Ted said...: Also, thanks for showing that you're for the idea of "Separate, But Equal", Howard.; 12/2/19, 12:35 PM
Yancey Ward said...: African-Americans should have started their own restaurants, stores, and buslines......right Howard?

Republicans are going to have to sue these corporations, because if they don't, it will metasticize into not getting access to other services required for running a campaign. You already see banks trying to discriminate against conservative-leaning businesses- this will only spread if they don't start fighting back.; 12/2/19, 12:43 PM
Howard said...: Thanks guys that's all I wanted to hear that you were sympathetic to the civil Rights movement. maybe you could be a little bit more sympathetic to the reparations movement you don't have to agree with it but maybe listen to the reasoning behind it especially the fact that we are standing on the shoulders of our white ancestors who left us a huge amount of infrastructure that we easily take advantage of. I actually agree that the federal government should look into regulating these giant social media and tech companies.; 12/2/19, 1:14 PM
rcocean said...: Thanks guys that's all I wanted to hear that you were sympathetic to the civil Rights movement. maybe you could be a little bit more sympathetic to the reparations movement you don't have to agree with it but maybe listen to the reasoning behind it especially the fact that we are standing on the shoulders of our white ancestors who left us a huge amount of infrastructure that we easily take advantage of.

OK Boomer.; 12/2/19, 1:41 PM
Howard said...: Now you're just engaging a hate speech; 12/2/19, 1:56 PM
hombre said...: Google, hence YouTube, like the Democrat Party, is an ongoing criminal conspiracy. This level of political censorship is small potatoes for them. Think China.; 12/2/19, 2:29 PM
ccscientist said...: With AI,there is no "code" that you can see. It is hidden. There is no line of Python that says "If Dennis.Prager then delete", it is within the AI network. Thus the Google and Youtube execs can claim they didn't do it--but someone gave the AI examples of "bad" videos and none of those bad videos were jihadis urging followers to blow shit up, nor were they videos of feminists calling for the death of men. Disengenuous from top to bottom.; 12/2/19, 3:45 PM