
Google gives UK government “super flagger” status for YouTube? - choult
http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2334027/google-gives-uk-government-super-flagger-status-for-youtube
======
guylhem
What if I don't agree with the UK government views on say freedom of speech?

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...](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/google-remove-riot-
spawning-anti-muslim-youtube-video-sparked-violent-protests-violate-company-
terms-article-1.1160370)

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.

~~~
lclarkmichalek
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.

~~~
mangeletti
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.

~~~
guylhem
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.

------
r00fus
"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.

~~~
basicallydan
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.

~~~
ajcarpy2005
You mean a government can't troll? :/

~~~
basicallydan
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.

------
mtgx
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).

~~~
skj
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.

------
clienthunter
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?

------
Jugurtha
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?

~~~
bananas
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.

~~~
Jugurtha
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.

~~~
bananas
Nope that's because you were in a country full of religious fundamentalist nut
cases.

Ones who are brainwashed, censored, dogmatised etc etc.

QED.

~~~
Jugurtha
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.

------
devx
> 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.

~~~
wfn
> 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](http://yacy.de/en/index.html)

------
CodeMage
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!

~~~
sentenza
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.

~~~
hahainternet
> 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.

------
pasbesoin
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.

------
bo1024
So the UK government is finally as important/powerful as Universal Music
Group.

------
Cless
Given what we've seen, I'm not inclined to believe that the UK government will
use this newfound power for good.

------
buzaga41
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

------
Havoc
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.

------
oth3r
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.

------
InclinedPlane
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.

------
thisiswrong
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...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140226/11344026358/reddit-
mods-bury-glenn-greenwalds-story-gchqnsa-use-internet-to-destroy-
reputations.shtml)

[2] [https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-
manipula...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-
manipulation/)

------
rayiner
I always found it interesting that this sort of thing gets a more tepid
negative reaction on HN than copyright related takedowns.

------
slowmover
David Cameron must have recently watched the first episode of Black Mirror.

~~~
venomsnake
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.

------
awt
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.

------
trevoragilbert
"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.

------
mhixson
"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.

------
WD-42
This website's layout makes me want to cry.

------
jotm
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_ :-)).

------
frade33
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.

------
Zenst
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.

------
Zigurd
I thought there is already a word for that.

------
undoware
Let's flag them right back, shall we?

~~~
mangeletti
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"?

~~~
undoware
No, it's a euphemism for concerted political action.

Perhaps I should have said 'capture the flag'.

------
leke
I wonder when FaceBook will be doing this?

------
s3r3nity
Lulz -- can't wait to see how the Google fanboi circles come out and spin this
one.

------
jukvic
_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.

------
benched
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."

~~~
pekk
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?

~~~
benched
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation)

I really, truly despise middle positions. They're just concessions made to
incorrect people.

