<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<br>
On 19.09.12 13:24, Matthias Pfeifer Freshmail wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:516565A8A1BC4BC6AA2C3DEA7C5B8CA8@stateless"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19298">
<style></style>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Hello <font face="Times New
Roman" size="3">Chaitanya.</font></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">
<div>>2. whether google/etc should be requested to
'process' the content that is uploaded - specially ones with
words >targeting a particular community/religeon</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Point 2 sounds like a censorship-tool to me.
Additionally, techniques based on keywords were never a good
idea</div>
<div>because its lack of knowledge the context.</div>
</font></div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is nicely illustrated by the recent "problem" with Apple
censuring the word Vagina in any text. That was apparently fully
automated and with "good intentions".<br>
<br>
The issue with censorship is very serious. In this particular
"global" coverage of YouTube, there should be experts in about any
culture imaginable and it is certain there will be cases where some
society's members will be offended.<br>
<br>
Restricting censorship to well known subjects/languages/cultures is
exactly what we have today: "If it doesn't sound offensive in my
language/English, then it's ok".<br>
<br>
Censorship is what reduces our ability to learn in particular about
other cultures and views. It should not be encourages in any way.
Which is sort of easy today, because Internet let's censorship be
avoided.<br>
<br>
Daniel<br>
</body>
</html>