Google gives UK government “super flagger” status for YouTube?
computing.co.uk
computing.co.uk
And why the UK government? What about giving that same power to the government of Afghanistan for example?
From a utilitarian perspective, they could use that "superflagger status" to prevent the spread of videos that have lead to violence in the past.
One simple example : http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/google-remove-riot-spa...
However, from a freedom of speech perspective all that is very very wrong. If watching a video cause you urges to start rioting and harm people, maybe it's not the video that's the problem.
I believe that while the standard currently used by US courts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action) is not ideal in all circumstances, it is largely functional and has not caused a great deal of harm. In practice, the way it plays out is that it gives hate groups enough rope to hang themselves in the court of public opinion. See: The WBC.
And these things were also drummed up by years (or centuries) of propaganda.
You don't see too many people bringing Leopold II.. Except for a recent article which made me go "Yay ! Finally !"
In other words, if you believe in your freedom, you should fight for it, not try to convince others of the pragmatic values of having it.
Ideas (and videos, and guns) don't kill people. People kill people.
It has always been, and will likely persist for a very long time.
Utilitarianism be damned - not a single millimetre of freedom should be sacrificed in a vain attempt to limit that human tendency.
Nobody could convince someone educated in the consequences of war to rise up and fight their war for them.
Censoring free speach is never the right answer imho.
Brokenshire suggested that the government was also pushing for a "code of conduct" for internet service providers and other internet companies, which might include changing search algorithms to downgrade "unsavoury" content in internet searches.
Google told the FT that while the Home Office had been given these new permissions, the company still retained the right to decide whether they ought to be removed or not
Seems like an expedited version of the normal flagging function.
Do as some are doing, and set up GNU MediaGoblin[0] on a server for yourself and friends.
You try setting up your system and inviting your family and friends to use it. People can use a MediaGoblin instance that you set up for them without much effort, with no additional software, and with a fairly decent user experience.
[1] http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government...
Then don't use Youtube.
"Freedom of speech" means different things in different places. The First Amendment only means anything in the US. It isn't law in the UK.
So what does this really mean? So Google ultimately decides, but the UK can "recommend"? Without seeing the process in practice, it's hard to say if this actually changes anything.
I suppose the point of the "super-flagger" status is that whomever has that title is known by Google to not be a troll, who flags wildly and arbitrarily.
Trolling isn't just "pissing off other users", it's "pissing off other users for the lulz". That's a very dumbed-down definition of trolling, too. I think it's unlikely that a government would piss anybody off just for the sake of it. I suspect they'd have motives to do with economic or social goals on some national or international level.
However, that doesn't mean that this alleged power can't and won't be abused in the way that a troll might abuse the flag power.
It's unclear whether Google is willing to ignore the flags outside of special cases, but I expect we'll find out next December.
So in a purely practical sense, basically "nothing changed" in terms of video accessibility, but the fact that it's special status alone might cause behavior to change just because they know a "super flagger" flagged the video.
Ideally for biggest "do no evil" effect, Google would hide the fact that a super flagger was the one that flagged this particular video from the reviewer, to allow an unbiased review.
I think it makes a certain amount of sense for government representatives, especially police, to get "direct service" for reviewing things that could be dangerous, or illegal. Perhaps a video on YouTube accidentally reveals the name/address of some in witness protection. I think it's fair for that to be immediately reviewed and addressed by Google. The question is, what other abuses of this privilege might it lead to? Might this open the door for not only fast review, but influencing the result of reviews?
Interesting ethical questions for sure.
We have nothing in common anymore. We're just too different on every level that counts. We've tried to make it work - or rather, I have - but it's no good. You never respond, most of the time you don't even acknowledge me or what I say.
I'm not happy. You're not happy. It's pointless.
I'd leave you if I could, but you won't let me and I don't see that changing. I know you'd harass me, stalk me, spy on me, and treat me like a criminal. Isn't it funny that you'd take notice then. You're nothing but a sociopathic bully, set in your ways, blind to the reality of your actions.
I couldn't leave anyway, there's no where to go - you've seen to that. But I can't keep doing this.
I've begged, pleaded, screamed, and shouted. Nothing works.
As I sit here a perfectly normal, law-abiding, person - wellies on the porch, tea in hand, dog at my feet, plates in the dishwasher - I've come to the only conclusion I can.
People will talk. Most probably won't understand. I'll get tarred with the brush of ignorance and called all sorts of names. As they try to compute the double life I'd led and the lies I'd told they'll only confuse their moral compass further. I'll probably get hurt badly. But it'll all be worth it.
Maybe it's not your fault that you're the way you are but I have no choice now, I have to put me first, I'm sorry.
I going to have to kill you.
________
Disclaimer for security services/LEA/whatnot: this is fiction designed to evoke thought, specifically the dynamics of how extremism comes to be. I am not the character in the above piece, but I am capable of sympathising with him - which is kind of the point. It is categorically not meant with menacing intent or as a threat so you can put your Communications/Terrorism legislation down. Isn't it fucking sad that I have to write that?
I don't encourage that thing Google is doing, however, it's 2014 and it's only now the UK is doing something to go back from UKistan to the United Kingdom.
I'm from Algeria and the UK showed great hospitality to extremists calling for killing us from the foggy London streets. They allowed that in the name of democracy and freedom of speech. Easy being a democracy when what the extremists do isn't harming you.
It took the fhit to hit the san for them to wake up and do something about it.. How about freedom of speech now when terrorist actions are conducted on the UK soil?
Free media means that the govt. has lost control of the conversation, they want it back. The key sentence in that piece is ' the government wanted more power to deal with 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".'
One man will decide what 60million people "want to see".
I want to watch people die, in horrible and disturbing circumstances. http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie who is anyone to deny me that freedom.
The government already raised the spectre by trying to have Facebook remove a link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10395816/Davi...
It's Daily Mail politics, by people who don't understand.
An assassination attempt on a King few centuries ago, oh my...
I agree partly with you on the liberty side, that's why I said I don't like what Google is doing (i.e: The way they are doing things) and by extension, the way the UK is doing things..
The way the Government here is doing things: Watch whatever you want, but if we catch you, you're screwd.
_I want to watch people die, in horrible and disturbing circumstances. http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie who is anyone to deny me that freedom._
:D
http://reddit.com/r/watchkidsgetfucked
Who's anyone to deny them that freedom, huh..
PS: If anyone of you clicked on that link - which I really expect to be a 404-, I hope you're using TOR, VPN, SSH tunneling, God mode encryption and really make sure every packet your machine is sending and receiving is immaculate :)
PPS: Oh, and if you clicked, you're a bad person..
Most older folks though remember the IRA bombings[1] as the most recent scourge.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Ar...
My take on it is that the UK has tried a variety of reaction strategies to terrorist threats which have had varying levels of success. And the people have varying levels of trust in their government which then colors their interpretation of the actions a government might take and the reaction to their actions. In many ways I think the UK fears religious persecution more than most governments.
Here, there was a program for reconciliation. I mean, we've had it good for the last decade. It's really not the same anymore and there is peace, but the sequels are there.
And there are a whole bunch of new problems: What do you do with the children born in those terrorist families (because they lived wives and children in the mountains. These children were endoctrinated. What do you do with them).
The reconciliation program promised amnisty to terrorists who surrender. They were given money, etc, and immunity to start over.. But this brought other problems: When some of them don't have the decency to move away from where they started, and return to the very neighborhood they did some evil actions in. If you ever talk to them, you have big problems. This turned them into "business men" who are untouchable. And I let you imagine the frustration and resentment of the average citizen, especially the poor.
People will think "Heck, it pays to be a terrorist.. I should've killed some people to get those benefits, huh.."
There's also conflict with people in the military who sacrificed their lives and all, who gave an arm, a leg, an eye for the peace and who got nothing, to see these terrorists drive in beamers with immunity...
Not to mention that many who surrendered and who got benefits, money and situation... Eventually constitued back-up and provided supplies for the still-active ones. Some of them get busted, but you can easily make the case that "Once a terrorist, always a terrorist".
This gets contrasted by those who truly surrendered and repented. So you can't throw them all in one bin.
And so on, so forth...
It's a tough, tough, tough question.
I hope that the one lesson that we as a country learned from the Troubles in Northern Ireland was that the strategy to deal with terrorists is actually to sit down and find out why they are so pissed off.
[1] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgo...
reportage is not the same
I don't support any censorship.
If someone wants to publish this shit, let them. You're a bona fide idiot if you bother with it.
Censorship, brainwashing, media control and years of religious dogma turned them into cowardly bombers to start with.
What this does is making you blasé, and you know you're sort of screwd when a bomb explodes and you continue your conversation like nothing happened.
Ones who are brainwashed, censored, dogmatised etc etc.
QED.
I also miss the point of your "Nope". It's about what ?
Also, I wasn't in a country "full of religious fundamentalist nut cases". There were a few fundamentalist nut cases (compared to the millions of normal, regular citizens who want to live their lives normally) who brought chaos.
Even in the countries where there is the most violence, it would be naïve to assume that most people are like that. Most people want to live. Few nut cases want to blow themselves and go to Heaven or some nonsense like that, and unsurprisingly, it is these few the media are interested in showing.
Censorship turns people into suicide bombers? I think the fact that the rest of what you listed is actually transmitted over things like Youtube completely negates your point.
Don't forget this is only the start of censorship. The progression is as follows:
1. Censorship is forbidden.
2. Censorship is a subset of all things.
3. All things is a subset of censorship.
4. Censorship is universal.
At that point, people are puppets by nurture. They're then controlled by the will of the people who control the information.
Then when all you know is hatred and a single view than you're easily taken and trained.
Once we take away everything it means to be British, in an attempt to be 'secure' - what are we defending?
We shouldn't just do the right thing when it's "easy" - we should do it when it's the right thing.
Google, the search engine, will die by the end of this decade. Mark my words. This is the beginning of the end. This is the moment in history when Google the search engine, started to serve not its users, but the governments.
As soon as there's a "good enough" P2P censorship-free and privacy-friendly alternative to Google, millions of people will move to it. Such a search engine seems pretty unlikely today, but it will come, and when it does, Google won't be able to stop it, because to be like it, it will mean reverting all of these shitty policies they're engaging in right now, and it will be too late to do that.
On that note: does anyone have an opinion on YaCy? http://yacy.de/en/index.html
That is, assuming they really only block it inside the UK. They certainly can't make the video unavailable for everybody or we'll soon have a Youtube that is filled only with the intersecting "this is acceptable" sets of all governments.
On the other hand, this might actually be a nice opportunity for rebranding: They should call it Youtube Zero.
As in zero videos.
Youtube makes the final decision.
At least it's "flagger" status and not the power to directly remove.
Still feels like a slip along that slippery slope, though.
Amongst all the rest, there is the concern about "notification" transitioning into "obligation". You, Google, can no longer claim you were as yet unaware of a particular situation; we (the UK government) therefore now expect instant response -- and response in our favour.
In other areas of law, I gather the situation and a party's obligation to act in some manner can depend significantly upon what they are and are not aware of. I'm concerned that prioritizing the requests/demands of a government known for censorship tendencies may induce or create an obligation to cater to those tendencies.
But why the UK? It seems that they've committed to the path of censoring the Internet like some authoritarian regime, but it makes me wonder what happened behind closed doors between the parliament and Google management that would lead this to happen.
> I'm from Algeria and the UK showed great hospitality to extremists calling for killing us from the foggy London streets. They allowed that in the name of democracy and freedom of speech. Easy being a democracy when what the extremists do isn't harming you.
> It took the fhit to hit the san for them to wake up and do something about it.. How about freedom of speech now when terrorist actions are conducted on the UK soil
[1] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140226/11344026358/reddit...
[2] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula...
By the synopsis - there is also a joke here about Cameron and pig with really low standards, but I cannot seem to find it.
To be fair, I imagine that Google also believes that this represents further censorship creep based on previous statements by the company. Must be a lot of political pressure going on behind the scenes with this.
As long as I see "This video was flagged by the UK government for terrorism" on the video, I'm ok with this. If terrorism was your reason, then own it. "We denounce this video because it is terrorism. Signed, the UK." Show that message to users.
But I'm quite happy here with my unregulated Internet, 900 ISPs all over the country and 100/100 Mbps unlimited fiber connection with a 42 Mbps 3G fallback (there's also Gigabit fiber but it's just too fast :-)).
It always has happened, just that we know that it happens, even though we already suspected as much.
Perhaps I should have said 'capture the flag'.
This points to blackmail on the government's part, and explains why would Google succumb to these demands.
Google told the FT that while the Home Office had been given these new permissions, the company still retained the right to decide whether they ought to be removed or not.
This reads like just an expedited version of the regular flagging function.
The major problem with the UK is that it's a tabloid driven society and in turn policy, and that is truly terrifying.
I really, truly despise middle positions. They're just concessions made to incorrect people.