Surprisingly few comments on this one.
Unless the Irish Times article has been massively edited/corrected (and it doesnât say it has been), I think that the misinterpretation has been on the part of Techdirt. I mean, given how the flagging system currently works, an article saying that a government agency has been given âsuperflaggerâ status which enables them âto flag swaths of content âat scaleâ instead of only picking out individual videosâ doesnât really imply that the agency has âsuper-censorship powers.â Especially when the article says that this âallow[s] them to have content instantly reviewed,â as this acknowledges that YouTube still reviews the flagged videos.
And if this was always a part of the article there could be no doubt:
Google confirmed that the Home Office had been given powerful flagging permissions on YouTube but stressed that Google itself still retained the ultimate decision on whether to remove content for breaching its community guidelines.
Itâs also a bit ridiculous to think that the government should only ever act against things that are illegal. Itâs perfectly legal to be an asshole, but police and the government have always discouraged people from being assholes. The community policing that was once engaged in (and is missed by many) was very heavily engaged in this sort of thing. The government typically uses itâs powers to shape society in ways that it thinks are best. And note that in the IT article Brokenshire was not talking about YouTube specifically, but about the broader government responsibility with respect to online media:
The UKâs security and immigration minister, James Brokenshire, said that the British government has to do more to deal with some material âthat may not be illegal, but certainly is unsavoury and may not be the sort of material that people would want to see or receiveâ.
He said that among the issues being considered by the government was a âcode of conductâ for internet service providers and internet companies.
That may be problematic to some, but itâs not quite the same as what Techdirt is saying it is.
What? No itâs not.
If something is so grossly offensive/inflammatory as to be illegal, then yes, Something Should Be Done, but if something is merely ânot the sort of material that people would want to see or receiveâ, thatâs a matter for those individual people.
Not me, as it happens.
Thatâs the point: whatâs allegedly missed by âmanyâ [citation needed] shouldnât dictate the situation for all.
Guidance and policies such as tax allowances for certain activities, sure, but arbitrary censorship? I havenât voted to surrender my personal responsibility and choice.
So itâs OK to have policies that encourage marriage (between man and woman), reward investment into real estate and the buying of houses, make the purchase of alcohol, tobacco, pornography, and guns more difficult, require commercial advertising to be honest, require media broadcast over public airwaves to be in the public good and expletive free, etc., etc., but totally illegitimate to discourage the dissemination of terrorist videos?[quote=âMinistry, post:4, topic:25755â]
Not me, as it happens.Thatâs the point: whatâs allegedly missed by âmanyâ [citation needed] shouldnât dictate the situation for all.
[/quote]
You prefer Guiliani-esque broken-window policies and zero tolerance? Community policing is widely seen as a preferential alternative to such policing policies.
If you regularly flag bad stuff with the correct flags, YouTube pays more attention to your future flags. Iâm wondering if this is all theyâve done.
I think the probem is with trusting the judgement of a bunch of politicians, also, what exactly would the criteria be? Thereâs lots of stuff that some people find highly offensive and some find only mildly offfensive or not at all. A perfect example would be the incident with Christy Mooreâs wonderful song Weekend in Amsterdam where a bunch of prudes called in to the BBC and complained because they were apparently unaware of their ability to **not listen to things that they donât like **http://www.rnw.nl/africa/bulletin/bbc-apologises-âweekend-amsterdamâ
Well, yes. Apart from the one about broadcasts having to be âin the public goodâ.
If the hypothetical âterroristâ videos are illegal, action should be taken. No question.
However, if theyâre entirely legal (though distasteful), I demand to be the one to decide whether I can be aware of them. I have no interest in watching them, but thatâs my decision, not the decision of some Government morality monitor.
Please donât tell me what I prefer. I didnât say that.
I canât comment on what might be âwidely seenâ. I only speak for myself.
Thatâs my point: the right of the individual to act independently of the collective. Within the hard limits of laws, of course - I donât mean to come across as an absolutist libertarian - but not within the nannying of âfamily-friendlyâ morality.
Pornography is legal. Alcohol is legal. Owning guns is legal. Swearing is legal. Being dishonest is legal. Choosing to rent rather than own, or to invest in property other than real estate is legal. Choosing not to marry is legal. Yet you are OK with government policies that push people either into or away from these actions, not for legal grounds but because the government approves or disapproves of them. Why is it OK for the government to essentially ban swearing on broadcast TV yet not OK for them to try and ban terrorist videos on youtube? And would your objection suddenly disappear if they simply passed a law saying that they could ban terrorist videos on youtube?
I didnât tell you what you preferred: I asked. And I asked about broken-windows in particular because these are two styles of policing that are seen as being in tension. And youâve said that you have no problem with the government doing anything to enforce laws, which is what zero tolerance is all about: complete enforcement of all existing laws, including for trivial offences.
The difference is that an individual can choose to ignore Government guidance. If Government disapproves of porn, tough: I can decline the filter. If the Government arbitrarily removes/blocks YouTube videos, the Governmentâs will is imposed without a choice.
[Yes, I know there are ways around YouTube national blocks, but if one doesnât get to know whatâs been blocked, one wonât know to look for it elsewhere.]
The difference is that, say, owning oneâs own home isnât presented as the sole option, with the Government silently, unaccountably, removing any information about the alternative.
Personally, I donât drink alcohol, but I wouldnât support an initiative to hide off-licences.
Iâm not entirely sure I understand your point. They CAN ban terrorist videos on YouTube, and I have no objection to that.
If a video is classified as âterroristâ, in a way that clearly breaches the law, then I accept it should be banned. If a video is merely vaguely âextremistâ, in a way that doesnât breach laws about promoting terrorism, it may be distasteful, but is entirely legitimate to distribute and watch.
You cannot chose to ignore the bans on expletives on broadcast media. You cannot choose to see advertising that is prohibited. To the extent you think you can, you can also consume the forbidden âterroristâ videos at places other than youTube.
And note that the flagging system as it currently exists is not mandatory. YouTube may deal with the flags as they see fit. The government is merely voicing their position and expressing their interests in a non-mandatory manner. Nothing is being forced on society, nor is society being forcibly deprived of anything.
Iâm asking you whether you would object if the government passed a law that required youTube to comply with their flagging demands. This would make the government actions certainly as legal as banning expletives on public airwaves or prohibiting various forms of advertisement.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
