This Will Backfire: Google/Facebook Using Copyright Tools To Remove 'Extremist' Content
from the slippery-slippery-slope dept
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???
— Rana H. (@RanaHarbi) June 26, 2016
Banned for 7 days for posting the photo of my friend who was killed in Syria. pic.twitter.com/J89wDCFR3H
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I can answer that
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Define extremist
Libertarians? hate groups? NRA members? Snowden supporters?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Re: I can answer that
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You mean paid
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Ministry of Truth
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Define extremist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Define extremist
would that include terrorists like George Washington and Ben Franklin? How about Ghandi? Nelson Mandela?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Ministry of Truth
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Define extremist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
just good old propaganda
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 thread ]
Re: Re: The Ministry of Truth
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Define extremist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Define extremist
"Ugnat! Look, he use fire! he extremist!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The Ministry of Truth
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Define extremist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Re:
A problem created by the very politicians who are complaining about extremists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Code of Conduct
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 thread ]
Re: Define extremist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Au contraire
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Ministry of Truth
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Thank you.
- The Unicorns
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Define extremist
What?!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Define extremist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Au contraire
No wonder we want to criminalize advertising.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Define extremist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Define extremist
'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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Will they apply this fairly?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Define extremist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pleasure Groups.
Probably not extremist, but I'm sure Google feels the need to censor them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dontch'ya know
[ link to this | view in thread ]