Techdirt's think tank, the Copia Institute, is working with the Trust & Safety Professional Association and its sister organization, the Trust & Safety Foundation, to produce an ongoing series of case studies about content moderation decisions. These case studies are presented in a neutral fashion, not aiming to criticize or applaud any particular decision, but to highlight the many different challenges that content moderators face and the tradeoffs they result in. Find more case studies here on Techdirt and on the TSF website.

Content Moderation Case Study: Google Refuses A Law Enforcement Agency Demand To Remove A Video Depicting Police Brutality (2011)

from the government-takedowns dept

Summary: Google began documenting government requests for content removal in 2009. Periodic transparency reports informed users about demands made by government agencies, breaking requests down by country and targeted service (YouTube, Google search, Blogspot, etc.)

In October 2011, the section dealing with US government agency requests included a note indicating Google had refused a questionable demand to take down a YouTube video.

We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove YouTube videos of police brutality, which we did not remove. Separately, we received requests from a different local law enforcement agency for removal of videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. We did not comply with those requests, which we have categorized in this Report as defamation requests.

News coverage about the unusual request pointed out YouTube's value as an archive of public interest recordings. Later reports issued by Google added the name of the law enforcement agency: the Greensboro Police Department -- one that apparently has a history of officers deploying excessive force.

This isn't the only time Google has rejected an apparent effort to remove content that does not reflect well on the agency making the request. Subsequent reports show Google has rejected government requests targeting recordings of abuse of inmates by corrections officers, articles detailing a police officer's work history, videos containing information about a law enforcement investigation, and five requests to remove videos that "criticized local and state government agencies."

Decisions to be made by Google:

  • Does targeted content contain sufficient public interest to justify rejecting government demands?
  • Does pushing back on requests usually result in government agencies withdrawing or dropping questionable takedown demands?
  • If copyright claims are raised as justification for seemingly inappropriate requests, is fair use raised in defense of leaving the video up?
Questions and policy implications to consider:
  • Does YouTube have a duty to preserve content with sufficient public interest, even if the original uploader/creator tries to remove it?
  • Does Google/YouTube have a duty to the public in general, even though it's a private company? If so, does this conflict with Google's obligations to its shareholders?
  • Does challenging questionable government demands provide more value to users?
Resolution: As noted in Google's transparency report, the targeted video was not taken down. This initial oddity was followed by other questionable requests over the years. Following this showdown with a local law enforcement agency, Google began highlighting requests that "may be of public interest," allowing users to gain more insight into questionable government activities, as well as similarly-notable requests made by private citizens and businesses.

Hide this

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: content moderation, government requests, law enforcement, police brutality, takedowns
Companies: google, youtube


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2020 @ 4:23pm

    more info

    well, OK -- but how many of these police take-down requests did Google comply with ?

    Seems the Transparency Report only provides half the story.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2020 @ 7:39pm

      Re: more info

      I am guessing you could go to their report site and find out, if you were truly interested.

      Remember, of course, that they get so many that they become statistics.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        wd41, 7 Nov 2020 @ 5:48am

        Re: Re: more info

        Nope.
        Their Report is just a huge database (in awkward csv format) of specific worldwide requests with no disposition details or summary analysis.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          TheForumTroll (profile), 9 Nov 2020 @ 3:37am

          Re: Re: Re: more info

          I have no idea what CSV you are talking about. The site (did you click the link?) has a very nice overview of who requested what etc. incl. how many requests were and were not denied.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2020 @ 3:48am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: more info

            so how many of these type police requests did Google actually comply with, since you did read that very nice overview in the report?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    TFG, 6 Nov 2020 @ 7:47pm

    I like the response in general: "No... and we're going to tell the world that you 'asked.'"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 6 Nov 2020 @ 8:10pm

    I wonder if there's a term for that sort of thing...

    Following this showdown with a local law enforcement agency, Google began highlighting requests that "may be of public interest," allowing users to gain more insight into questionable government activities, as well as similarly-notable requests made by private citizens and businesses.

    Oh to be a fly on the wall of the police departments that tried to hide officer brutality and/or corruption only to have a huge freakin' spotlight pointed at it instead, though the best part has got to be that unless I'm misreading something multiple requests of that sort have been made, which means some people really did not do their research before attempting to hide their rotten actions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 6 Nov 2020 @ 10:57pm

      Re: I wonder if there's a term for that sort of thing...

      If the uploaded YouTube video is the only copy in existence of a given video, and the police agency trying to get it deleted is being sued for that incident of brutality depicted in the video, wouldn't that count as spoliation?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    ECA (profile), 7 Nov 2020 @ 1:55am

    14 billion is the question.

    What is the answer?
    How much money every man/woman/child could have paid to win this election.? $46.67

    How much was spent on this election, to be the all time most.?

    Where is the F' did they get that much in the first place? From all the tax savings in the last year?

    Then the question.
    Where does all the extra cash go After the election? I dont think it gets returned.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Annonymouse, 7 Nov 2020 @ 7:43am

      Re: 14 billion is the question.

      What in Elmo's fuzzy tickle me pastel world does this have to do with the subject at hand?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        ECA (profile), 7 Nov 2020 @ 11:23am

        Re: Re: 14 billion is the question.

        Mouse,
        Who is trying to Augment laws.
        Why pick on 1 source of information rather then the old school, also.
        Who has the resources to Push the idiocy.
        Why is common sense being replaced with Money.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Nov 2020 @ 1:56pm

    Does Google/YouTube have a duty to the public in general, even though it's a private company? If so, does this conflict with Google's obligations to its shareholders?

    Google thrives on being popular with the general public, and this popularity is driven (in part) by preserving public-interest content, and serving as a reliable public forum.

    So regardless of whether it has a duty to the public, by serving the public well, it is executing its duty to the shareholders to make bigger profits. Granted this might piss off some shareholders who are invested in the stability of the establishment, but that's not Google's direct problem until enough of them complain to the board of directors and dictate Google policy.

    Google doesn't have any civic responsibility to the government either. It may have to act on court orders just because it is a company under US jurisdiction, but these typically run contrary to the services it provides to the public (which includes individual privacy of private data), so it has every reason to contest government agents trying to encroach on these services.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2020 @ 3:12am

      Re: government agents encRoach

      "so it has every reason to contest government agents trying to encroach"

      .... we all have every reason to contest & resist the constant stream of police-state encroachments

      unfortunately Google & BigTech generally ... do strongly support heavy government interventions into most aspects of our lives

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Nov 2020 @ 1:23pm

        strong support of heavy government interventions

        Generally, yes, of course they do. The establishment system affords these companies a lot of wealth and power which runs contrary to the welfare and the good of the public.

        But the point is we're seeing Google not facilitating government encroachment the same way we see, for example, AT&T who sells fast-track phone record access to Law Enforcement, a practice which would run entirely contrary to the rights expressed in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution... if it weren't for Third Party Doctrine (which has precedent but not due to the Constitution).

        And the question is, why is Google paying its lawyers to challenge the will of state agents / law enforcement, especially in a way that Facebook does not?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Kathleen (profile), 10 Nov 2020 @ 9:04pm

    am guessing you could go to their report site and find out if you were truly interested.

    Remember, of course, that they get so many that they become statistics https://www.walgreenslistens.live/.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.