Turns Out UK Government Only Wishes It Had Special Powers To Censor YouTube

from the not-quite-the-full-story dept

Fri, Mar 14th 2014 4:27pm — Mike Masnick

Yesterday we had a post, based on a Financial Times story that suggested YouTube had somehow given the UK government "special" powers to censor videos they don't like.

After digging deeper into this issue, it appears that the Financial Times report greatly exaggerated the facts, and while it appears that the UK government still wishes it had the power to censor perfectly legal videos, YouTube is not, in fact, aiding in this process. While anyone can flag lots of videos, YouTube has a "trusted flagger program" which gives those who are flagging many videos -- and those who have a good track record of actually flagging videos that violate YouTube's terms of service -- the ability to flag more videos quickly. It also seems likely (though unconfirmed) that the YouTube policy team that reviews the flags will more quickly review (or take more seriously) flags that come from those "trusted flaggers." However, it's really not all that different than YouTube's regular flagging, and as such won't allow the easy censorship of legitimate content.

The FT's report on "special powers" and claims that such flags would be "instantly reviewed," combined with direct claims from a government official, James Brokenshire, about how content "that may not be illegal, but certainly is unsavoury" needs to be dealt with, because it "may not be the sort of material people would want to see or receive" is still worrisome from the position of what the UK government thinks it should be doing online. But it appears that the idea that YouTube is giving the UK government "special" powers to carry out that task is not accurate.

It is still deeply concerning that the UK government seems to think that it has a role in being the nanny on the internet over what legal videos the public can and cannot watch, but YouTube has long been a supporter of free speech -- even on controversial videos -- as seen by the company's support for keeping controversial videos like Innocence of Muslims online (until recently forced by a court to censor it).

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, flagging, james brokenshire, uk, youtube
Companies: google, youtube

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 4:52pm

this is what I was saying yesterday
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 4:58pm

This attitude of governments is still a problem as its is pressure to turn platforms in gatekeeper controlled publishers, or for them to limit uploads to accredited publishers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 5:10pm
  
  Re:
  I don't think they will ever be able to do that
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2014 @ 10:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    nukes will fly before they totally make the internet bland and annoying. where's the "intelligence" agencies honeypot if it's not there?
    
    Remember, the point of all this is constantly reminding us that we're slaves to their whims.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 5:36pm

the UK is fast turning towards an authoritarian nation. once it started down the censorship road, everyone warned it could only get worse and probably out of hand! when it all goes shit shaped, as it is bound to do, and countries like China make comments about what has happened to the free speech and privacy complained so bitterly about lacking there, when the UK has become a lot worse!!
he's gonna learn the hard way that following orders of a self-interested industry or a main player in their game, wont pay off. it will only bring problems that will be very tricky to fix!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 5:46pm
  
  Re:
  UK is worse then china when it come to censorship? ok
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 5:47pm
  
  Re:
  no one warned censorship
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 5:49pm
  
  Re:
  there people trying to stop it https://www.openrightsgroup.org/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2014 @ 5:52pm
  
  Re:
  "UK is fast turning towards an authoritarian nation" how many times have I heard that before
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Oizo, 14 Mar 2014 @ 10:07pm

God damn it Mike
'Trusted flaggers' program. Indeed an euphemism for handing them censorship powers. Why can Google never do anything wrong for you ? Whenever possible you extend sentences by interpreting the results or the meanings behind sentences (which is certainly not a wrong thing to do), yet with 'trusted flaggers' you interpret it merely as 'oh right, there is trust involved'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2014 @ 9:21am

I had a video censored just because of the title.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jeff todd, 15 Mar 2014 @ 12:47pm

state control
the web is success because it is free of state control; once they get their foot in the door for any excuse, censorship will follow. without the web Climategate would have been buried by the BBC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2014 @ 2:23pm
  
  Re: state control
  but once they get their foot in the door they can see how big the room is
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 19 Mar 2014 @ 6:05am
  
  Re: state control
  And with the web it was shown to be a total non-story that is one of the few straws denialists cling to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
roger, 16 Mar 2014 @ 2:05am

if a Christian did a thing like this in a muslim country they would be executed on the spot. but we have a freedom of speech that is being abused.These people are not human there animals because they have no humanity in them and the people that watch it are no better. Britain need not go aboard to fight we have them living among us. if they don't like us why live here the death penalty for treason needs bringing back anyone how defaces the union flag or what it stands for people that fight our army and still hold a british passport
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2014 @ 5:14am

Wanting it, is absolutely just as bad, it means that one day, us all might have the privalage to find out one day, that the uk/insert tyranical g off choice, has been doing this/insert overreach, for the last fucking ten years, ..........and slipped their minds to "tell" us about our consent, that we must have given.....obviously..............i mean, for the folks around the world "running things", they sure got terrible memories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]