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
As you can see, her account was assessed a “strike” for posting a video of a European Parliament debate about torture. And it notes that if she receives two more such strikes, she may lose her account. Of course, it’s quite likely that this was some sort of automated system trying to stop videos on “torture” or somesuch, but really, this is the kind of thing that should keep people worried about all these demands to make platforms censors of “terrorism” or other “bad” stuff. You inevitably get these types of errors. And while it’s likely that with enough attention, YouTube will magically reverse its ridiculous position on this video, not everyone is able to get that kind of attention. It makes you wonder what other content is getting blocked because some algorithm, or some clueless individual, can’t be bothered to understand what’s happening.
Filed Under: automated takedowns, censorship, european parliament, marietje schaake, platforms, terrorism, torture, youtube
Companies: youtube
Comments on “YouTube Takes Down European Parliament Video On Stopping Torture For 'Violating Community Guidelines'”
Please youtube, don’t torture us with autmated takedown systems!
Re: Re:
May fire ants invade your privates.
Maybe they should have spliced a few minutes of video of kittens playing at the beginning. Those videos seem to never go away.
Re: Re:
What do you think I watch after reading this all day? 🙂
Re: Re: Re:
Videos of kitten torture?
To be fair
Being against torture really is against the community standards of the US government
Re: To be fair
It’s not that they are in favor of torture, but that they want to keep the population sedated, fat and happy. And especially, spending money.
Gut wrenching anti-torture videos (or pro-torture videos) don’t do that.
Re: Re: To be fair
They are in favour of torture as long as it’s their own blackops agencies doing it.
I hope someday someone leaks the automated program google is using for youtube so we can see just what differences there are between what Google says it takes down and what they are actually programmed to take down.
There's a reason these were censored
If people see shocking, offensive, gut wrenching videos, especially videos exposing government wrongdoing, of any government . . .
. . . then they might stop shopping!
Lets not forget the flagging system. For all we know it could be a few users abusing the flagging system. It’s not that hard to do.
Re: Re:
While it may not be perfect, what other type of Senator Joe Lieberman endorsed censorship system could there be?
Re: Re:
Flagging political opponents to censor them? Noo, that is unpossible!
"violating community guidelines."
This is what happens when your HOA is taken over by cartels & soundbite hungry politicians who don’t even live there.
Solution:
ip route [all .gov netblocks] null0
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.
People really need to start suing YouTube over these stupid takedowns. The current system where a video is taken down, there’s an outcry, the author argues for why the takedown was invalid, Google relents and puts the video back up and nothing changes, isn’t working.
Google needs to start losing money over this crap. That’s the only thing that will ever convince them to make any changes.
Re: Re:
“People really need to start suing YouTube over these stupid takedowns.”
Go for it.
Re: Re:
people making their living on Youtube will fear for their livelyhood. Others don’t have enough of a reason to sue. Remember that ABC is based in LA and the person suing would have to use the DMCA if it is copyright or rely on Googles even more vague terms of service agreement, where they tell you they own your ass and everything you do will be sold.
Re: Re:
“People really need to start suing YouTube over these stupid takedowns.”
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.
Re: 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.
Re: Re: 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?”
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.
Re: Re:
Re: 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.
Yeah, really – Google, and everything they own is complete and utter shit. But, somehow, that doesn’t stop you from nevertheless eventually sucking their dick from tip to base, and swallowing their rancid curdled load as hard as you can.
Re: Re:
“Did you just write an article criticizing YouTube? Why, you must be a supporter of Google!”
The fuck is that logic supposed to be?
Re: Re: Re:
It really speaks to the intelligence of the obsessed morons around here, doesn’t it.
YouTube sucks since it was bought by Google.
Re: Re:
YouTube was founded in 2005, Google bought it in 2006. Are you honestly still bitching about it 10 years later? In fact, do you actually have such a clear memory of using it for that 18 months before they were bought to begin with?
Ah, the thin skinned humans that can’t bear seeing what their own kin is causing (possibly with their help by being complacent). Because hiding makes it go away, right?
A GLOBAL INFORMATION/ FREE SPEECH RATING SYSTEM
Again!… and as I’ve stated elsewhere!… it’s not Google’s job (or any search engine’s job!) to “decide” my “search parameters”! Such parameters must be decided by a GLOBAL COALITION OF OUR PRIMARY SECTOR “SECURITY STAKEHOLDERS (i.e., the Business Sector, the NGO+NPO Sector, and the Bureaucratic Sector!)”! The politicians, N-O-T-W-I-T-H-S-T-A-N-D-I-N-G!
.
Please!… no emails!
Freedom of the Press
The big problem here is that the use of platforms (YT, FB, etc) as a source for news is completely destroying the freedom of the press we rely on for our democracy to function.
“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).
equality
FACEBOOK, TWITTER, YOUTUBE, GOOGLE are PLACES OF PUBLIC GATHERING and ADVERTISE themselves as PUBLIC places..
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” !!!
Re: equality
Where do they advertise themselves as public places?
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.
Re: Re: equality
I’ve only ever seen them advertised as widespread social/sharing platforms that are free to use.
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.
Re: Re: Re: equality
“Such invitation to the general public makes them public places.”
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.
Re: Re: Re:2 equality
Which is true…
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.
Re: Re: Re:3 equality
Well yeah, if you spilt a sentence in two and ignore the overall context while pretending I’m saying something I clearly didn’t you can make anything “not true”. Does it hurt to have to make that much effort to avoid reality?
Re: Re: Re:4 equality
Hey, we can’t help it if you like to rape and kill babies, Paul, as long as you like to rape and kill babies.
Yeah, I see how your “as long as” argument works.
Re: Re: Re:5 equality
Wow, you really haven’t a clue what I was saying. Perhaps instead of thinking about raping babies, you should learn English context and how it works?
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.
Re: Re: Re:2 equality
“No, it makes them private places that welcome the public under certain terms. There’s a big difference.”
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.