This Will Backfire: Google/Facebook Using Copyright Tools To Remove 'Extremist' Content

from the slippery-slippery-slope dept

Mon, Jun 27th 2016 10:34am — Mike Masnick

They've been pressured to do this for a while, but according to a Reuters report over the weekend, both Google and Facebook have started using some of their automation tools to start automatically removing "extremist" content. Both are apparently using modifications to their copyright takedown technology:

The technology was originally developed to identify and remove copyright-protected content on video sites. It looks for "hashes," a type of unique digital fingerprint that internet companies automatically assign to specific videos, allowing all content with matching fingerprints to be removed rapidly.

In other words, the companies aren't (yet) using these tools to automatically determine what's "extremist" and block it, but rather they're just keeping it from being posted. Of course, we're all quite familiar with how badly this can fail in the copyright context, and it's quite likely the same thing may happen in this context as well. Remember, in the past, under pressure from a US Senator, YouTube took down a Syrian watchdog's channel, confusing its documentation of atrocities with extremist content. And, hell, the same day that this was reported, a reporter on Twitter noted that her own Facebook account was suspended because she posted a picture of a friend of hers who had been killed in Syria.

Are you f kidding me???
Banned for 7 days for posting the photo of my friend who was killed in Syria. pic.twitter.com/J89wDCFR3H
— Rana H. (@RanaHarbi) June 26, 2016

And that's a big part of the issue here: context totally matters. One person's extremist content may be quite informative/useful in other contexts.

Yes, I know that there's a big push for "countering violent extremism" online these days. And the government, in particular, has been putting lots of pressure on the big tech companies to "do something." But I'm curious what anyone thinks this is actually doing. The people who want to see these videos will still see these videos. It still seems like a fairly exaggerated threat to think that someone just watching some YouTube videos will suddenly decide that's why they're going to join ISIS. And, if that is the case, it seems like a much better response is counterspeech -- put up other videos that rebut the claims in the "extremist" videos, rather than blocking them across the board. Of course, if they're being matched via ContentID, even someone offering commentary on a video to debunk claims may suddenly find out that their videos are being taken down as well. I can't see how that's at all helpful.

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, contentid, copyright, isis, platforms, radical extremism, videos
Companies: facebook, google

42 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 10:39am

Ahh yes, they've "been pressured". Poor, defenseless Google and Facebook and their massive lobbying budgets just couldn't seem to fend this off.

I'd assume TD's stance is that these companies have "been pressured" to spy on the entire population and support things like CISPA as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- I.T. Guy, 27 Jun 2016 @ 10:46am
  
  Re:
  You, dont even like you. ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:03am
  
  Re:
  "these companies have "been pressured" to spy on the entire population"
  
  You mean paid
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:15am
  
  Re:
  Did you have a point?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 10:46am

I can answer that
But I'm curious what anyone thinks this is actually doing.
The answer is, "something". I know it is not a good answer, but it is the correct one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JoeCool (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 10:57am
  
  Re: I can answer that
  There's very little worse than a politician who 'needs to be seen doing something'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NeghVar (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 10:47am

Define extremist
How do they define extremist?
Libertarians? hate groups? NRA members? Snowden supporters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- I.T. Guy, 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:26am
  
  Re: Define extremist
  Yes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ryunosuke (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:34am
    
    Re: Re: Define extremist
    i too would like to know what is considered "extremist", ESPECIALLY in today's social/political climate.
    
    would that include terrorists like George Washington and Ben Franklin? How about Ghandi? Nelson Mandela?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Define extremist
      Mother Terresa & Jesus too
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:35am
  
  Re: Define extremist
  Liberals? Pleasure Groups? Moms Demand Action members? Snowden haters?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 2:45pm
    
    Re: Re: Define extremist
    Pleasure groups?
    
    What?!?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wendy Cockcroft, 30 Jun 2016 @ 2:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Define extremist
      *Damn you, Autocorrect!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Uriel-238 (profile), 30 Jun 2016 @ 11:50am
        
        Pleasure Groups.
        I'm still interested in these pleasure groups.
        
        Probably not extremist, but I'm sure Google feels the need to censor them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:42am
  
  Re: Define extremist
  We are getting to the point where it means anyone outside the ruling class.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ryunosuke (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:44am
    
    Re: Re: Define extremist
    so... like it's always been since the beginning of humanity...
    
    "Ugnat! Look, he use fire! he extremist!"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James Jones (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 12:18pm
  
  Re: Define extremist
  Well... there are DoD training documents that say extremists tend to use phrases like "individual rights".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 4:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Define extremist
    Not that I'm doubting you, because after everything I've run across these last few years that seems entirely in character for a government agency, but do you have any evidence for that claim?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 6:54pm
  
  Re: Define extremist
  anyone who doesn't think like me and like what i like. The person asking that question being the one deciding what type of content will be censored
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 8:43pm
    
    Re: Re: Define extremist
    Let's just cut to the chase here. The Snowden leaks specified 'targets' not just extremists.
    
    'Targets'? 'US persons" - citizens and US legal residents. And non-US persons. So, you know, that's pretty much it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Groaker (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 10:57am

Google and Facebook give all appearances of joining the rest of the mass media in censorship on purely political grounds.

And it is quite effective as demonstrated by the NY Times holding back the proof of torture at Gitmo for about a year, which allowed Bush43 to re-elected.

Never mind the loss of free elections when the physical process was taken over by electronic machines. Scandals erupt in the abuse of this voting abuse, but they are then hushed up. Even when the population should be outraged. Mark Foley is one that never got his due inspection on that issue.

And then there are always the scandals of the thick blue line that rarely get light shown upon them.

What does it take for for people to start noticing these things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wendy Cockcroft, 30 Jun 2016 @ 2:31am
  
  Re:
  In a me-first society where the weak go to the wall, nothing, till it happens to them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:16am

The Ministry of Truth
Google and Facebook may not have any malicious intent (or they might?) but this is definitely creating the tools to enable a very 1984 like cleansing of certain facts or views from what the majority of the public can see and locate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:34am
  
  Re: The Ministry of Truth
  Hell is full of good intent I tell you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ryunosuke (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:40am
    
    Re: Re: The Ministry of Truth
    the phrase you are looking for is "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Ministry of Truth
      Thanks, it's a bit different here so I translated directly but the idea is the same.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Michael, 27 Jun 2016 @ 12:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The Ministry of Truth
        To hell with it...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:30am

What is extremist content?

As some of you may understand what I consider to be vulgar, offensive, stupid, and extremist others consider to be the pinnacle of enlightenment and what I consider to be the pinnacle of enlightenment others consider to be the depth of ignorance and bigotry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 2:17pm
  
  Re:
  Taking an extreme position.
  
  Some say the sun rises in the East. Others say the sun rises in the West. The truth lies probably somewhere in between.
  
  If you take an extreme position that the sun rises in the East, then you are an extremist. Learn to be more fair minded and consider the other viewpoints before spewing such extremist propaganda.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 2:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah I believe the sun rises in the USA and sets in the USA. Only logical reason for it since I can look out my window and see it do that daily. Everyone else is just stealing rays from the US sun.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TechDescartes (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 2:33pm
  
  Re:
  What is extremist content?
  Well, that depends on what the meaning of the word 'IS' IS...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:34am

there's a big push for "countering violent extremism" online these days

Because we live in a world where no atrocities happen. And unicorns.

This is like trying to block the sun using a sieve. Not only the sun will still be on the other side of it but it will inevitably go through.

I have this feeling we will enter a new Dark Age right in the contemporary world because the douches that hold the power are too sensitive to some content and want to hide it. For the children, why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 27 Jun 2016 @ 12:43pm
  
  Re:
  We respectfully request that you stop using our name and implying we endorse your statements.
  
  Thank you.
  
  - The Unicorns
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:40am

just good old propaganda
This is nothing more than the government getting Google and facebook to push and control propaganda. It was good boy a matter of time because the government already does this with main stream news.

Fear is and will always be the best motivator for people to join a cause and give up their rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 11:57am

...it seems like a much better response is counterspeech...

Counterspeech is hard when nobody even bothers pretending they believe what you have to say. I think there's a lesson about the dangers of wolves in there somewhere...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 12:02pm
  
  Re:
  Counterspeech is hard when nobody even bothers pretending they believe what you have to say.
  
  A problem created by the very politicians who are complaining about extremists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TechDescartes (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 12:12pm

Code of Conduct
Apparently there is a contest to see how many tenets of Google's Code of Conduct can be broken in a single act.

It would appear that they knocked out "integrity", "usefulness", and "freedom of expression" straight away. If no Google employee does anything about this, they will have knocked out "responsiveness" and "take action" as well. That only leaves "privacy" and "security". Just wait till we get reports of email accounts and other non-public material being deleted.

This just might work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2016 @ 12:41pm

Au contraire
It still seems like a fairly exaggerated threat to think that someone just watching some YouTube videos will suddenly decide that's why they're going to join ISIS

This is demonstrably false as we all know, because Obama and Hillary told us, that it as a YouTube video with only 600 views that inspired the attack in Benghazi. Imagine what would happen if the wrong video goes viral!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Uriel-238 (profile), 27 Jun 2016 @ 4:15pm
  
  Re: Au contraire
  Because human beings have no agency and are compelled to do things when told by media.
  
  No wonder we want to criminalize advertising.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2016 @ 3:32pm

Two companies I try to avoid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John85851 (profile), 29 Jun 2016 @ 2:02pm

Will they apply this fairly?
... and apply it to other extremist groups. For example, will they be removing posts from the Westboro Bapist Church and banning their members?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2016 @ 4:40am

Boy. Everyone knows that governments have copyrighted all forms of extremeism

Dontch'ya know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]