YouTube Takes Down European Parliament Video On Stopping Torture For 'Violating Community Guidelines'
from the really-now? dept
Back in 2008, then Senator Joe Lieberman went on a ridiculous pro-censorship campaign, demanding that YouTube take down any "terrorist" videos. For reasons I still don't understand, YouTube complied. As a result, watchdogs documenting Syrian atrocities had them censored from YouTube, because YouTube determined them to be in "violation" of its guidelines in publishing "shocking and offensive videos."That was a few years ago, and it seems like the problem has only gotten worse -- as have the ridiculous calls for YouTube and other platforms to be the giant censor in the digital sky. The latest victim? Would you believe it's the European Parliament itself? Marietje Schaake, a really wonderful Member of the European Parliament (and a Techdirt reader), tweeted that the video she had posted of a European Parliament debate on "anti-torture" was taken down for "violating community guidelines." Really.
Danger of automated content removal:YouTube took down my video of the anti-torture debate in the European Parliament! pic.twitter.com/ZwhPxlkvXk
— Marietje Schaake (@MarietjeSchaake) October 5, 2016
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: automated takedowns, censorship, european parliament, marietje schaake, platforms, terrorism, torture, youtube
Companies: youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To be fair
Gut wrenching anti-torture videos (or pro-torture videos) don't do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To be fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a reason these were censored
. . . then they might stop shopping!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"violating community guidelines."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution:
If they can't read it, they can't act bitch about it. Of course this may be considered a hate crime, since it discriminates against retarded people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google needs to start losing money over this crap. That's the only thing that will ever convince them to make any changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Go for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On which legal grounds?
"Google needs to start losing money over this crap. That's the only thing that will ever convince them to make any changes."
Incorrect. They only put this system in place because the MPAA was trying to shut them down and the lack of a takedown system was one of their big arguments. No matter what Google do, the MPAA will still attack them and there's a danger courts will buy their argument if Google are seen to remove protection measure that previously existed, even if they were not working as intended.
As per usual, it's the cartels that are the problem here, Google just happen to be the biggest, richest target and take the heat of the many smaller legitimate players who would have little way of defending themselves if Google weren't taking the hits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How about on the legal grounds that they're taking down videos which do not violate community guidelines or that are fair use? That their automated system routinely penalizes innocent users and that any given user's account is at the mercy of the whims of anyone who wants to file a complaint against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How is that legal grounds? Community guidelines are up to the service to determine, while fair use is a defense in court against a charge of infringement, not a legal standard alone.
Plus, yet again, ContentID is in place because the cartels demanded it, not because Google just decided to have it at a whim. Even if there are grounds for suing successfully, all you're going to do is place a barrier to new/better services because you've made them liable for any mistakes in a system that's impossible to be 100% accurate. Google are in a position to absorb thew resulting penalties, their competitors mostly aren't.
"That their automated system routinely penalizes innocent users and that any given user's account is at the mercy of the whims of anyone who wants to file a complaint against it."
Then the fault is those who file false complaints, not the system that's processing those orders at a rate that would be impossible for human moderators. Again, the problem is that they are being asked to automate what is not possible to accurately automate, so when a legal threat is received they err on the side of caution. Argue that they shouldn't, but recognise why the problem exists and attack the correct parties at fault rather than the service provider who the cartels would gladly have shut down if they didn't do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or how about moving away from YouTube? archive.org is one alternative--they don't take down videos like this, they don't have ContentID, and they don't track what users view (and fought an NSL and associated gag order).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As much as I respect what Archive.org is trying to do, I find the website itself to be cumbersome and sometimes confusing to navigate compared to YouTube. I'm also not a fan of the endless pages, where you get to the bottom and it just keeps loading more and more results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fuck is that logic supposed to be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A GLOBAL INFORMATION/ FREE SPEECH RATING SYSTEM
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of the Press
"The press" are called that because they owned their own printing presses. They could, literally, print ANYTHING they wanted, without having to get permission from anyone else! They would have to suffer the consequences afterwards, of course, but the message would have already got out. Some even ended up dead as a consequence but their contribution has been vital in protecting freedom.
With the use of platforms, the platform owner shares legal responsibility and so is FORCED to censor to protect itself. The press no longer have their own printing presses.
If YouTube and Facebook are being forced apply legal standards, who is going to make available the equivalent of the "Napalm Girl" photo that changes public opinion and ends the next war? The newspaper must be able to take responsiblity and say "this is not child abuse or supporting terror, it is news".
It is vital for democracy, that platforms are given COMPLETE immunity for publication of content from "the press" (difficult to define who that is, of course, but that is the problem we must solve).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
equality
FACEBOOK is a PUBLIC SPACE therefore it has no right or legal option to censor participants. FACEBOOK is a PUBLICLY TRADED company, NOT a "private entity" and it solicits PUBLIC memberships. Just as cake bakers HAVE to bake homosexual cakes, and wedding planners HAVE to "accept" homosexual weddings, SUCKERberg has to accept opinions, videos, and pictures he does not like.
The same applies to ALL "social media", YOUTUBE, and search engines.
A lowly COUNTY CLERK was jailed for refusing to "do her duty" by not issuing homosexuals marriage licenses
Or should the Baker, Planner, and Clerk have just said:
"You homosexuals Violate Community Guidelines" !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: equality
I've only ever seen them advertised as widespread social/sharing platforms that are free to use.
Free != public.
Widespread != public.
If a newspaper publishes classifieds and letters to the editor for free on their platform, the broadsheet, does that make their broadsheet a "public place"?
Your desires to have these businesses that provide services to a broad-range of people for free as long as they conform with the terms of service of said business holds no legal, or moral, basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: equality
Such invitation to the general public makes them public places.
Your desires to have these businesses that provide services to a broad-range of people for free as long as they conform with the terms of service of said business holds no legal, or moral, basis.
Oh, the old "business exemption" claim. Like a "business" has the right to refuse service to any group it so chooses, or to refuse to hire any group it so chooses, or to require those it does hire to provide whatever services it choses to the "boss". Yeah, I think those kinds of arguments were shot down a long time ago, although some people apparently never got the message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: equality
No, it makes them private places that welcome the public under certain terms. There's a big difference.
"Like a "business" has the right to refuse service to any group it so chooses, or to refuse to hire any group it so chooses, or to require those it does hire to provide whatever services it choses to the "boss"."
Which is true, as long as they don't exclude people on the basis of a protected class or require services that are illegal. For example, they can refuse to service a group of D&D players or a Klan gathering, but they can't exclude a group of black people or a specific religious group. You can refuse to bake a cake for people wanting to hold a Star Wars theme wedding, you can't refuse it for people because they're having a gay wedding - not if you would offer the same services to a straight couple.
Excluding people from Facebook for being assholes is also still perfectly acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: equality
No, it isn't.
as long as they don't exclude people on the basis of a protected class or require services that are illegal.
Well now, that's not exactly just "any group", now is it? You just shot your own argument down. Congratulations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: equality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: equality
Yeah, I see how your "as long as" argument works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: equality
You said "a "business" has the right to refuse service to any group it so chooses". Which is only partially correct, so I clarified it with "as they don't exclude people on the basis of a protected class". Both are true to some degree, but my clarification is the correct one - within pre-set parameters, a business can refuse service to anybody it chooses. Since Facebook aren't refusing service to a protected class on the basis of their membership of that class, they can block or restrict whoever they wish.
This is simple fact, and it's strange that you don't understand it. Not as strange as your response, which appears to reveal some disturbing things about how your mind works, but strange nonetheless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: equality
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-place/
"A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose."
I realize you may be a great authority and all, but I'm inclined to go with what real legal experts say on legal matters. There's a big difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]