Google gives UK government “super flagger” status for YouTube?(computing.co.uk)
computing.co.uk
Google gives UK government “super flagger” status for YouTube?
http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2334027/google-gives-uk-government-super-flagger-status-for-youtube
104 comments
Lots of governments do have that ability[1]. The difference here seems to be that it wasn't required by law (instead, heavily pressured by the government), but it's also just the ability to flag, not to remove. We're going to have to see how that pans out in practice (as well as if they can remove things only in the UK, which is true of some of the takedowns mentioned in [1], e.g. "We received two requests and two court orders from regulatory agencies to remove 105 YouTube videos that contain clips of the movie, "Innocence of Muslims." We restricted videos from view in Egypt").
[1] http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government...
[1] http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government...
No, the video is the problem. People's words, be they transferred by video, television, or just print, have inspired people to do things ranging from the horrendous to the amazing. Speech is not innocent, which is all the more reason to keep it free.
"Inspired" violence is a pathetically low bar that should be rejected by anybody with any interest in free speech. Scorsese's Taxi Driver inspired John Hinckley Jr, but no reasonable person that believes in a free society would think Scorsese in any way or capacity responsible for the assassination attempt on Reagan.
Apologies, I'll be less nuanced for you. Hitler would have got nowhere if he was mute.
Hitler would also have gotten nowhere if there had not been lots of antisemitism, racism, nationalism and the urge to take revenge for the treaty of Versailles among german people. If Hitler would have been mute, he could still have written "Mein Kampf", he probably would not have done the speeches but could be easily replaced by Göbbels, Himmler or someone else. Contrary to a lot of contemporary documentaries and so an, the danger of national socialism wasn't a single person but the ideology and a society which was all too open for it.
Thank you for this comment. Let's not pretend we can blame a single person for any atrocity. Genocide requires the complicity of a lot of people. And people can be inspired to comply by speech. Free speech is a worthy principle, but it carries a price we should never ignore.
Thanks, the funny thing for me about discussions like this is that in my home country, Austria, (extreme) right wingers are often the first ones who argue that there freedom of speech is too restricted because it's a criminal offense to - for example - deny the holocaust there. That makes it a difficult topic for me. I sincerely want to believe in freedom of speech but reading about history and watching the rise of neo-fascist movements in some areas of Europe has taught me that too often the better argument looses against fear, demagogy and violence. I still think that enlightenment, which depends on free speech, is the best solution in the long run but it becomes difficult if you have to deal with things like violent racism in the short run.
> Hitler would also have gotten nowhere if there had not been lots of antisemitism, racism, nationalism and the urge to take revenge for the treaty of Versailles among german people.
And these things were also drummed up by years (or centuries) of propaganda.
And these things were also drummed up by years (or centuries) of propaganda.
I'm not saying that speech cannot be used to organize great crimes. I am saying that the bar for responsibility or fault is nowhere even near "inspired".
"goad"? "facilitate"? What's the boundary?
Either of those, or "inciting", seem like reasonable boundaries when it is goading/facilitating/inciting specific illegal action.
So "somebody should do something about those Jews" or "I'd be one among many cheering if a bunch of these Jewesses burned alive" - not specific, so it's not inciting?
Either of those, while absolutely vile, should not be restricted speech.
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.
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.
Essential liberties (e.g., USA Bill of Rights, etc.) have to appreciated dogmatically for them to remain intact. As soon as people enter into arguments about the utility and practicality of essential liberties, they begin to appear to validate the concerns of an oppressor.
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.
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.
I fully and totally agree, upvoted you and wish I could upvote you even more (hopefully, others will!), especially considering the parent post you replied to.
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.
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.
That makes freedom of speech more of a religion than a philosophy.
Then perhaps we need to teach more children about the consequences of war?
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.
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.
> What if I don't agree with the UK government views on say freedom of speech?
Do as some are doing, and set up GNU MediaGoblin[0] on a server for yourself and friends.
[0] http://mediagoblin.org/
Do as some are doing, and set up GNU MediaGoblin[0] on a server for yourself and friends.
[0] http://mediagoblin.org/
How is MediaGoblin different than just NGiNX with extensions to handle streaming video and sound?
How is Youtube different than that? In fact, why do people, even many developers, use CMSes? Most people like a management UI, the ability to easily upload from a multitude of devices, and all the other things that a dynamic app can give you. MediaGoblin also transcodes uploaded files automatically to be playable with common HTML5 media players. There's also federated commenting and following infrastructure in development.
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.
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.
Best to think of it as a kind of CMS for multimedia. You can have multiple users on one instance, comments, public/private settings, etc.
Are public/private settings implemented? I thought that was a "stretch goal" for their recent fundraising campaign[0; $60k goal].
0. http://mediagoblin.org/pages/campaign.html
0. http://mediagoblin.org/pages/campaign.html
Then patronize another private business that reflects your views. Or don't. Nobody really cares.
"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.
"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.
It would appear that they were threatened with even more drastic measures.
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.
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.
The time will come. Google is now under control, the control will tighten.
Not quite:
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.
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.
> What if I don't agree with the UK government views on say freedom of speech?
Then don't use Youtube.
Then don't use Youtube.
"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. Google's own user policy on YouTube forbids content that incites hatred or violence."
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.
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.
It definitely sounds from the article that all this allows is that given their special "super flagger" status, is that videos they flag, whether one or "swaths", simply jump to the top of the "to be reviewed" queue. Presumably the same queue that normal individuals flagging videos use, and ultimately approved or rejected through the same mechanism.
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.
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.
It makes it sound like Google is humouring the Home Office a little.
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.
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.
You mean a government can't troll? :/
I think a government is capable of trolling. I think it's less likely for a government to troll than an individual Internet user, in the traditional "trolling" sense.
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.
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.
Sounds like the RIAA / various large publishers are still more powerful than the Home Office and fighting copyright infringement is still more important than fighting terrorism, since they can reportedly take down videos directly (and have often done so).
It's only more important because copyright holders currently pose far more of a threat to YouTube than "terrorism". Which, as much as I dislike both subjects, seems about accurate.
Yeah, it will be interesting to see what is actually taken down here. It would be nice if they did a chillingeffects.org thing but for the specific requests by the UK (including all the ones that were flagged but they ended up not taking down).
Reads to me like they gave a bunch of organizations access to a priority desk that screens flagged videos immediately, as a compromise between the normal flagging process and the takedown powers that some media companies have been given.
It's unclear whether Google is willing to ignore the flags outside of special cases, but I expect we'll find out next December.
It's unclear whether Google is willing to ignore the flags outside of special cases, but I expect we'll find out next December.
Surprise twist: Google policy only allows them to review the relationship once per decade.
It sounds like it just allows the government to know within a few minutes whether Google will voluntarily remove a video. It allows them to know whether they have to pursue takedown for what they consider an urgent matter through legal channels.
Very disappointed in Google over this. They are allowing them to remove stuff that isn't even illegal in UK. Code is law, indeed. Google is clearly doing this because the UK government is pressuring them in some extra-legal way, but I'm still very disappointed nonetheless. Google created the infrastructure to allow this sort of censorship of Youtube, so they are very much complicit to it (not to mention for the very fact that they gave them such access in the first place).
No. The UK government doesn't get to remove things, it just has an expedited way to get the removal requests in front of Google employees who can remove things.
Dear Government,
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?
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?
Good morning, UK...
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?
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?
We've had terrorism on UK soil for 1000's of years. You may even have heard of The Gunpowder Plot.
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.
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.
_We've had terrorism on UK soil for 1000's of years. You may even have heard of The Gunpowder Plot._
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..
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..
Actually if you know UK history you'd know that terrorism has been both religious (in the form of Protestant and Catholic conflicts), territorial (in the the form of sovereignty issues with places like Ireland and Scotland), as well as a variety of political intrigues and plots to balance out the power of the monarchy and the people.
Most older folks though remember the IRA bombings[1] as the most recent scourge.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Ar...
Most older folks though remember the IRA bombings[1] as the most recent scourge.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Ar...
I am familiar with UK History, ChuckMcM. There were really ugly periods. That's why I think that if anyone should actively be against terrorism, it's the UK ! And that's why I was surprized by the passivity of the Government with the likes of Abu Hamza in the streets calling for shedding the blood of the "unfaithful".
ok, I didn't get that from your original post but I understand the question.
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.
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.
That makes sense. It's a really complex problem, it's really hard.
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.
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.
[deleted]
"That's why I think that if anyone should actively be against terrorism, it's the UK"
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.
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.
While I agree, in the case of NI it wasn't a mystery: an occupying force who enslaved the population [1], installed a settler population and terrorised the natives and ran an apartheid society using religion as a proxy for heritage, leaving in the 20C, an economic and politically disenfranchised majority.
[1] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgo...
[1] http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgo...
because they aren't kids being fucked who just happen to get filmed
reportage is not the same
reportage is not the same
I nearly got my arse blown off in 7/7/2005 and spent the best part of 4 hours stuck on a tube train behind one full of dead people.
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.
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.
Yeah. I personally escaped 5 bombings, and witnessed several shootings. I always missed a bomb by a couple of minutes.
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.
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.
Nope that's because you were in a country full of religious fundamentalist nut cases.
Ones who are brainwashed, censored, dogmatised etc etc.
QED.
Ones who are brainwashed, censored, dogmatised etc etc.
QED.
Your QED is in reference to what exactly ? I didn't know there was something to prove, am I missing your point ?
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.
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, brainwashing, media control and years of religious dogma turned them into cowardly bombers to start with.
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.
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.
Yes.
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.
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.
I can't agree with this logic at all.
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.
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.
[deleted]
> 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, 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.
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.
> As soon as there's a "good enough" P2P censorship-free and privacy-friendly alternative to Google, millions of people will move to it.
On that note: does anyone have an opinion on YaCy? http://yacy.de/en/index.html
On that note: does anyone have an opinion on YaCy? http://yacy.de/en/index.html
Does that make flagged videos unavailable only in UK? Somehow I doubt it, but it would really be cool if that were the case. Want censorship in your country? Knock yourself out!
Why do they have to make one of the biggest asshats in the room the superflagger? Between them and the music industry, there won't be much Youtube left for UKians to watch.
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.
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.
> 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.
Youtube makes the final decision.
Youtube makes the final decision.
That's what they do for removing videos in most countries.
Which is sadly a good thing for many people because there are non-hard workarounds if the video is visible in many locations.
It's a worn tripe, but, "What could possibly go wrong?"
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.
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.
So the UK government is finally as important/powerful as Universal Music Group.
Given what we've seen, I'm not inclined to believe that the UK government will use this newfound power for good.
I'll never set my foot in UK and I'm happy to not be british! goddamn what a shitty place.. in terms of policy, I'd be scared with the government if I lived there, I imagine there must be a 'soft oppression' going on already.. Not to mention speech is not protected
I wouldn't mind that in principle, but I think there should be way more controls in place. e.g. Something like "all take down requests get published publicly 30 days later". Naturally the gov wouldn't go for that, but that is how I think it should be.
It's strange to me that Google would go out of its way to implement such a feature for the UK. Google does censor certain videos for specific countries' sensitivities, simply because by not doing so, youtube.com will be repeatedly shut down by the respective courts.
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.
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.
Ultimately the problem is not who has the power, it's the lack of due process. So much of the modern world is online and so much of online activity is considered to be unprotected. A priviledge contingent on the acquiescence of hundreds of different powers from celebrities to media companies to governments. In practice it's nothing less than a new type of aristocracy or a new class system. It's definitely a massive erosion of individual rights, especially to free expression.
By reading the top comments here it feels like Cameron's fascist gvt also has a "super flagger" up-voting status on HN. I mean come on, it feels like I'm on Reddit [1] all over again. Only a sock puppet [2] would say this:
> 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...
> 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...
I always found it interesting that this sort of thing gets a more tepid negative reaction on HN than copyright related takedowns.
David Cameron must have recently watched the first episode of Black Mirror.
Thanks a lot. I didn't knew the series existed. It is exactly what I need to watch.
By the synopsis - there is also a joke here about Cameron and pig with really low standards, but I cannot seem to find it.
By the synopsis - there is also a joke here about Cameron and pig with really low standards, but I cannot seem to find it.
This is fundamentally a problem with centralization that is probably temporary. Decentralization is coming in a big way and when it does these sorts of shenanigans will not be so easy to pull off.
"However, privacy campaigners will argue that it represents a further creep of censorship and surveillance powers exercised by the government over the internet, which will only become more extensive."
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.
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.
"The new powers are supposedly intended to help the government combat the promotion of extremist videos promoting terrorism."
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.
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.
This website's layout makes me want to cry.
I can feel the safety already! I imagine residents of UK live in a futuristic heavenly utopia!
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 :-)).
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 :-)).
If muslims or poor countries want to flag the blasphemous content, then it's a matter of free speech. Now, it's a matter of strategic importance. Am i insane? or the world has lost the meaning of dignity and into hypocrisy.
If what they flag and why is available then this would be open, honest and accountable.
It always has happened, just that we know that it happens, even though we already suspected as much.
It always has happened, just that we know that it happens, even though we already suspected as much.
I thought there is already a word for that.
Let's flag them right back, shall we?
Is that the equivalent of saying, "They're shooting us. Let's taze them right back!", since they are "superflaggers" and you're just a normal "flagger"?
No, it's a euphemism for concerted political action.
Perhaps I should have said 'capture the flag'.
Perhaps I should have said 'capture the flag'.
I wonder when FaceBook will be doing this?
Lulz -- can't wait to see how the Google fanboi circles come out and spin this one.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
Benched tries to explain humans to aliens, episode 122: "It was possible to compose pictures and sound coming from a screen in such a way that some people would consider it dangerous."
I halfway agree with you but I also think about giving a platform to Hitler. While it does not make one solely responsible for Hitler, it doesn't really wash to say smugly that you are just the messenger. Is there not a middle position?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
I really, truly despise middle positions. They're just concessions made to incorrect people.
I really, truly despise middle positions. They're just concessions made to incorrect people.
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.