YouTube Gives UK Gov't Broad Powers To Censor Videos It Doesn't Like, Even If They're Legal [Update: Or Not]
from the i'm-sure-that-won't-be-abused-at-all... dept
Update: It appears that this story was misreported by a few sources, and the fans were flamed by UK government comments about censoring videos. Youtube has as program that lets trusted sources more easily flag videos that are then reviewed fairly quickly by YouTube staff. However, these videos still get reviewed to see if they violate any of YouTube's terms of service, rather than automatically pulled down. It's still concerning that the UK government seems to think that it should censor content that even they believe is not legal, but it doesn't appear that YouTube is actually letting the UK government censor videos.A few years ago, then-Senator Joe Lieberman went on a bizarre anti-free speech crusade against YouTube, arguing that by allowing "terrorists" to post videos to YouTube, people were watching those videos and magically turning into terrorists. Because YouTube videos are just that powerful. Given the public shaming, Google actually caved in and started banning "terrorist" videos. Of course, how do you define a "terrorist" video? The fact is we just don't know, and that's evidenced by the fact that Lieberman's efforts resulted in videos from a Syrian watchdog organization being taken down as terrorism -- when they were really reporting on the atrocities of that country's government. If anything, you'd think this would be a clear warning about the perils of trying to censor "terrorist" videos. You're going to get it wrong, and often block important and newsworthy videos.
But... instead it appears that this effort is only ramping up, and unfortunately, YouTube seems to be helping. Over in the UK, where the government has been gradually censoring more and more of the internet over the past few years, Google has apparently agreed to give the UK government broad powers to "flag" videos they argue are bad, even if they're not illegal. Ostensibly, the goal is to block videos that "proliferate jihadi material."
The YouTube permissions that Google has given the Home Office in recent weeks include the power to flag swaths of content “at scale” instead of only picking out individual videos.And the UK government even admits that the videos it will be taken down are not illegal:
They are in part a response to a blitz from UK security authorities to persuade internet service providers, search engines and social media sites to censor more of their own content for extremist material even if it does not always break existing laws.
The UK’s security and immigration minister, James Brokenshire, said that the British government has to do more to deal with some material “that may not be illegal, but certainly is unsavoury and may not be the sort of material that people would want to see or receive”.Of course, that kind of statement shows the program is wide open to abuse. The sort of material people would not want to see or receive? Well, then they just don't watch it. Besides, who gets to decide what people would not want to see? Because there's lots of important content that a government might not want its citizens to see, but which are kind of important to a functioning democracy and open society.
While I'm sure the pressure from the government here was quite strong, it's upsetting to see Google cave in to these kinds of requests. Giving the UK government a giant "censor this video" button seems like exactly the wrong approach.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, free speech, jihad, joe lieberman, syria, terrorism, uk, youtube
Companies: google, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Whelp...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They actually were censoring for as long as Google owned youtube. Now, they going official with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This simply means Google won't stand up for their users' rights the way they (may) do it in US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Missing a few words there
This has nothing to do with people no longer being 'forced' to watch stuff they don't want to, as there's already a way to do that: don't watch the objectionable video. Rather, this is entirely about the UK government, yet again, acting as state nanny and determining just what people should and shouldn't be able to see/watch/listen to.
'Big Brother is watching you' indeed...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
More and more is being opened up as the global citizen eyes continue to look at all these security branches. They are finding out it is far worst than was first revealed. There seems to be no end to how far they will go to control and no hold back as to how much is enough.
Even more worrying is a statement from Snowden that most of these secret programs have yet to be revealed. Which one could take to mean there are some real bombshells yet to go off. If that is the case then this censoring of youtube is like dandruff. Annoying but not any where as important as things yet to be revealed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He causes the explosive demolition of Parliament to showcase the downfall of a corrupt and totalitarian government hellbent on spying on its own citizens "for your protection". Can't be giving anyone any ideas now can we?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well
Define "Extremist."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But anyone who cared to get past the title would see that many of these videos did not live up to their claims. I remember watching one video that claimed to show a US tank being blown up. In reality, the roadside bomb exploded much too far from the tank to cause any possible damage, other than blowing some dust on it. It was also a small explosive charge that would probably not done any damage even if the tank tread had been on top of it when it exploded. So the whole thing was nothing more than an empty boast.
I explained all this in the Youtube page comments. Then when I went back a short time later, the page had been deleted.
Although Youtube had a horrible censorship policy, Google Video seemed to be much more lenient in allowing videos that expressed anti-American sentiment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Whelp...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Missing a few words there
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend."
Speech 1985, excerpt:
The terrorist uses force because he knows he will never get his way by democratic means.
Through calculated savagery, his aim is to induce fear in the hearts of people. And weariness towards resistance.
In this evil strategy, the actions of the media are all important. For newspapers and television, acts of terrorism inevitably make good copy and compelling viewing. The hijacker and the terrorist thrive on publicity: without it, their activities and their influence are sharply curtailed. There is a fearful progression, which the terrorists exploit to the full. They see how acts of violence and horror dominate the newspaper columns and television screens of the free world. They see how that coverage creates a natural wave of sympathy for the victims and pressure to end their plight no matter what the consequence. And the terrorists exploit it. Violence and atrocity command attention. We must not play into their hands.
Mr. President, let us make no mistake: the threat from terrorism is growing constantly. The terrorist has access to ever more money. He operates across national boundaries. Modern technology makes the terrorists job easier and that of the security forces more difficult.
Now there is a new dimension, brought home to us in the horrific hijacking of your TWA aircraft a few weeks ago: not only an aircraft but an airport were in the hands of hijackers.
Increasingly we see evidence of links between the terrorist groups of different countries. They share funds, training, intelligence and weapons—and a total ruthlessness.
Could anything more clearly point up the need for the Governments and security services of all civilised nations to work together against such people? For a victory for terrorism anywhere is a victory for terrorism everywhere.
Nor is terrorism confined to countries where lawlessness and anarchy prevail. Its followers abuse the very freedom of open societies to do their evil work. Where they cannot get their way by the ballot box they use the bomb. They intimidate or they eliminate those who stand in their way.
The more open our society, the more we must be on our guard. Civilised societies cannot use the weapons of terrorism to fight the terrorist. But we must take every possible precaution to protect ourselves: sustained security measures for our aircraft and our airports: constant checking of people and luggage however irksome: combined action to penalise countries which harbour and assist terrorists: and above all the closest possible cooperation on pre-emptive intelligence. Too often in the past our countries have begun well but then slackened and grown complacent, making ourselves easier targets.
We have behind us many fine declarations and communiques of good intent. We need action; action to which all countries are committed until the terrorist knows that he has no haven, no escape. Alas that is far from true today.
And we must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend. In our societies we do not believe in constraining the media, still less in censorship. But ought we not to ask the media to agree among themselves a voluntary code of conduct, a code under which they would not say or show anything which could assist the terrorists' morale or their cause while the hijack lasted?
etc
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106096
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well
-UK/US Government 'barely unofficial' dictionary
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So freedom ends
So freedom ends
Not with a bang but 'an accommodation.'
(with apologies to T.S.Eliot)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Now, I'd love to be wrong on this, but the fact that Google caved on this in the first place suggests that cynicism, not optimism, is likely to be the better assumption here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why we need alternatives
Luckily, some of us are working on building an alternative type of media publishing... you can see a video here: http://mediagoblin.org/pages/campaign.html
Without the ability of people to control their own media publishing, these problems will get worse and worse... but we can build alternatives!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Well
Remember, the US and UK governments(the UK more than the US in this case) have been using anti-terrorism laws against the news agencies and reporters exposing their actions, so it's pretty clear that they believe that exposing their illegal/quasi-legal actions is the action of a terrorist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FTFY
*And by "certain people" I mean government politicians, their corporate masters, and the vocal religious minority that they simultaneously manipulate and pander to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Votre You don't understand of the internet works
Votre You don't understand of the internet works
Votre You don't understand of the internet works
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Sounds like US foreign policy.
Seriously though, the only quote here that's of any value is this: We cannot win against terrorist by aimlessly bombing civilians. By forcing them to choose between two extremist militant factions, they'll come to see the devil they know as the lesser of two evils.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You've now given me the kick in the ass I needed to stop using your website.
Bravo!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Whelp...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Whelp...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
UK
Yeah. Who cares about the letter of the law? The government should be free to censor anything it wants to, legal or not.
You brits take censorship too lightly: Mandatory ratings on movies and videogames, mandatory porn filters, censorship of anything the least bit offensive on television because of a handful of angry letters to Ofcom. What else?
Then there's your love of surveillance...
You folks really need better leaders.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ouTube Gives UK Gov't Broad Powers
I hope this includes party political broadcasts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UK
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ouTube Gives UK Gov't Broad Powers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: UK
I mostly agree with your comments about the US, except we don't seem to love surveillance cameras as much as you guys.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Whelp...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Won't the real bad guy just switch video hosts?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I noticed that during the Iraq war
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I noticed that during the Iraq war
The US occupation of Iraq lasted for almost nine years, and the heaviest fighting occurred during the middle years of that occupation. Even before being owned by Google, YouTube had a reputation of extreme one-sided censorship when it came to war. Although even scenes of death and graphic violence were permitted as long as the victims were America's enemies, any videos of military operations claiming to come from anti-US ("jihadist") groups were banned outright.
The only US-based video site back then that dared show uncensored Iraq war video from the opposing side was Ogrish.com, which was unfortunately an x-rated 'snuff'-oriented site made famous by its catalog of prisoner beheadings and other filmed murders.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I noticed that during the Iraq war
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: UK
Oh yes we do. London may be the most heavily surveilled place on the planet, but several cities in the US are running close behind, and all the rest are scrambling to catch up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Won't the real bad guy just switch video hosts?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I know quite a few tech guys who work on internet infrastructure, and they don't think it can be fixed. They think it must be replaced. But until there's a popular alternative, it's a matter of good social policy to fix the current internet as much as is possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSxRcuzAJMs
I have seen this message on youtube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Libertarian and anarchist political viewpoints are the order of the day in Tory circles, so I'd say "never."
Green and Socialist viewpoints are currently regarded as "questionable." While I tend to agree with some Green policies and disagree with Socialism, we actually need them to provide balance in politics. Basically, having them on the other side of the spectrum creates a healthy middle. A quick look across the Pond shows us what happens when the Green/Left gets pushed out to the margins. Basically, over there, the middle of the Right is considered middle ground and the Greens/Left are considered to be anti-American/terrorists in some circles. That is not healthy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Missing a few words there
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
To promote the downfall of the current regime we need to get people on board and get them to apply pressure via the ballot box. Unfortunately they tend to swing right when threatened and vote for UKIP and the BNP. They're basically Tories on steroids and the Establishment parties are the problem.
If we can get enough people to vote for the smaller moderate parties, we've got a chance. An actual revolution would only open the door to explicit tyranny as either the current Government cracked down on "terrorism" or the one that replaces it did so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]