7 ms·

Is this a first? Google voluntarily censors anti-Islam video in Libya, Egypt

46 points by uvdiv 14y ago

uvdiv 14y ago
I know Google famously censored political speech in China until Sergey Brin made his stand [a], and it continues to censor videos in e.g. India [b] (blocking content which could provoke Hindu-Muslim violence). But in those places, the courts of those countries force them to censor; here, the censorship is voluntary, seemingly of their own initiative. Is there a precedent for this? [a] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin#Censorship_of_Google_in_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin#Censorship_of_Googl... [b] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/net-us-india-violence-internet-idUSBRE87K0NM20120821 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/net-us-india-viole...
- mtgx 14y ago
  They censored the DNC speech and who knows how many thousands or hundreds of thousands other videos. It may have been "automatic censorship" because of their idiotic system, but that's not exactly a very good excuse for such important (political, no less) videos and on such a large scale, is it?
  - uvdiv 14y ago
    Yes, but in this case it's overtly political -- they are blocking videos on the basis of their speech content.
  - raldi 14y ago
    The DNC thing never actually happened: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/05/michelle_obama_dnc_speech_why_did_youtube_flag_it_for_copyright_infringement_.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/05/michelle_... There's always a delay between the end of a livestream and the point where you can watch the prerecorded video. In this case, YouTube merely displayed the wrong error message during that delay.
- calibraxis 14y ago
  Does Google/YouTube proactively restrict content based on notions of intellectual property or other US interests?
- leephillips 14y ago
  "Is there a precedent for this?" There are many. Here's one from a few years ago: http://lee-phillips.org/youtube/ http://lee-phillips.org/youtube/
DamnYuppie 14y ago
I believe the license for the film was revoked. Which means it can't be distributed. So I am not sure this was all Google's idea. Regardless I find the erosion of free speech to be sad. We must never say or do anything to upset the Muslims...please...
- Cushman 14y ago
  What free speech? When has YouTube ever proposed not to censor videos on the basis of content?
  - DamnYuppie 14y ago
    Free speech was a founding idea of the U.S. now we can't produce, protest, or say anything that upsets a certain group of people. That is not in any way shape or form "free speech". My comment was directed at that idea, not google or youtube.
    - Cushman 14y ago
      You have never had speech protections of any kind in any private forum. This is nothing new.
- dbecker 14y ago
  This isn't "erosion of free speech" in the conventional sense. Google isn't saying "you can't make this video." They are just saying they aren't going to deliver it. The principal of free speech never implied you have to repeat every communication that someone asks you to repeat.
doktrin 14y ago
This disturbs me on the grounds of "bad habit" precedent alone. Getting accustomed to self-censorship is almost as bad as having it mandated.
- DanBC 14y ago
  Do you shout "HELLO CUNTS!!!" every time you enter a building? Why is that form of self-censorship acceptable to you?
  - pstuart 14y ago
    That's different and you (should) know it.
    - Cushman 14y ago
      How?
      - astine 14y ago
        Meta Comment: pstuart is technically correct, but I think it's much more useful to explain why something is the case than to simply accuse someone of willful ignorance. There's always the possibility that they, or someone else, genuinely does not know.
      - pstuart 14y ago
        Because your example doesn't give the members of the crowd a choice if they want to hear it. Nobody was forced to watch the movie.
        Cushman 14y ago
        I was expecting something a little more convincing. That's a complete red herring; you never have the choice not to hear something once you've heard it. Does it help if I don't insult you unless you make eye contact with me? After all, if you didn't want to hear what I think about you, you didn't have to catch my eye.
ActVen 14y ago
Violence should never be allowed to become a useful weapon against free speech. When a company has built tools for self-expression that are widely used, they have a responsibility to commit to broad principles under difficult circumstances. Free speech principles aren't as widely protected across the globe as they are in the US, but that doesn't mean they are not very important to the advancement of society.
- Cushman 14y ago
  You're clouding the issue. "Free speech principles" as you describe them are not weakly protected elsewhere, they are not held. In particular, many -- most? -- enlightened Western democracies hold that hateful speech is not deserving of protection. Not because they're wishy-washy, but because they believe that's right. You're being closed-minded if you're not willing to accept the possibility that they're right.
  - calibraxis 14y ago
    Yes, as someone from the US, I feel embarrassed when our free-speech rights are lorded over others. After the 1960's Civil Rights struggles, we probably do in fact have the best free speech protection. But it's kind of academic since we (for example) also imprison ourselves the most. (Both in rate and total. A severe stripping not only of speech but freedom and dignity too. And of course it's "political", whatever that means. It keeps many from voting post-slavery.) There's different forms of social control; it's multi-dimensional. In a top-down democracy with elected kings, it requires consistent struggle to improve things. We're very privileged, and unfortunately arrogant and militantly violent too. I mean, what are we doing in the middle east anyway, handing out flowers? Or killing people, breaking things and making sure we're their boss?
  - ActVen 14y ago
    Your argument that I am being "closed-minded" because I believe in the value of free speech is amusing. Valuing broad free speech rights is a characteristic of an open mind. I never said that I didn't "accept the possibility that they're right". I just don't believe that an organization should be in charge of deciding what is "hateful" and what isn't. I happen to believe that free expression is critical to our moral and scientific growth as a species.
anuraj 14y ago
I think they censored the video because US interest is involved. The more Islamic world engages this video as a rallying point, the greater the security threat to US. Free speech has its costs too.
stevoski 14y ago
In my opinion, Google (as YouTube) is not obliged to show a video. The owners of the video still have the option to upload it elsewhere, or to host it themselves, or to distribute it via a torrent.
- nhebb 14y ago
  If it's straight-out political censorship, then they should rename it OurTube instead of YouTube. I say "if" because I'm not familiar with the video. I've seen a lot of meta reports about it, but I haven't seen a summary of the video's content.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    It is basically horrible acting, insanely bad stories, worse CGI effect (really, you could not afford to have the actors walk on actual sand so you just bluescreened the entire scene???). Oh and the content is essentially right wing christian propaganda.
    - dbecker 14y ago
      I think calling it "right wing christian propoganda" is generous. It isn't trying to be persuasive... it is just a few scenes depicting Muhammad as an idiot and philanderer.
pfortuny 14y ago
I shall not try to say this is an easy problem but it reminds me of people blaming the shopper for getting their cashbox robbed after leaving money there ('it is your fault...').
ck2 14y ago
In the USA there are limits to free speech. You cannot incite a riot, that is a crime. These videos are inciting riots, not a theory, it's a fact (though anything would have triggered these riots, they just wanted an excuse and it's a tiny minority who are the most vocal). "free speech" is an illusion in the USA, it doesn't actually exist as an unrestricted right - if you disagree, try screaming "fire" in a packed movie theater and see what happens to you, or do something as asinine like threaten the president or make a joke about the TSA while waiting in line at the airport.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  You have a profound misunderstanding of free speech rights in the U.S. Yes, you cannot incite a riot. You cannot say "My followers: Riot! Smash everything!" But because something you say could or does cause a riot is not reason enough to ban your speech. Otherwise you get something like the so-called "Heckler's Veto", whereby people who merely disagree with your speech can make themselves enough of a nuisance to have it silenced.
  - ck2 14y ago
    So they can tiptoe around exact instructions and say "watch this and then decide what punishment you should inflict" ? Why are people picking youtube videos as freedom-of-speech and not the right to joke about their suitcase being a bomb to the TSA at the airport? Why is that censorship okay and not youtube?
    - twoodfin 14y ago
      So they can tiptoe around exact instructions and say "watch this and then decide what punishment you should inflict" ? Now you're starting to shade things into a gray area. At some point you need a judge or jury to decide whether speech is incitement to violence or not. And I don't believe the video in question is (even obliquely) advocating any particular action. It's just grossly offensive to some people. Why are people picking youtube videos as freedom-of-speech and not the right to joke about their suitcase being a bomb to the TSA at the airport? Why is that censorship okay and not youtube? Like your other examples of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or threatening the President, there are certain forms of "expression" that can be restricted or punished, not because they're expressing particular ideas, but because they have a direct, causal connection to harm. You can come up with a thousand examples: It's not "free speech" for a doctor to write you a prescription for a lethal dose of a drug. It's not "free speech" for a police officer to tell you you're obligated to talk to him without a lawyer. It's not "free speech" to lie on the witness stand. "Free speech" doesn't mean you can't be punished or restricted from saying anything, but it does mean that absent any direct harm to the rights of others, you're free to express ideas in any reasonable manner. This shouldn't be too hard to understand.
pagejim 14y ago
Internet, being the most widely reaching medium along with the ease of publishing, becomes quite attractive to anyone who hasn't got the means ( money/influence ) to get content published on more traditional mediums like Newspaper, Magazines and TV. Hence you will find all kinds of material on the Internet including all kinds of hate speeches against all the religions, ideologies, personalities etc. Google being an indexer of Web would naturally present such material if you go looking for it. It's not Google's fault nor should it be its worry. After all, you can't really blame or shoot the messenger. In a way, Internet has had more of a leveling effect on the kind of content and information that is available to common people in the world ( at least for those who have some kind of access to it ). If for any bizarre reason, Internet starts to become more censor prone, it would loose its magical value. It is the most important invention of our times. It's somehow better if we don't have control over it. Just sit back and try to recollect the amazing pace with which it has changed and how beautifully it has sustained itself. It has a evolution path of its own. The logic inside my head says that it was correct when Google removed the video from Libya/Egypt. But there is something in my heart that says that we would loose the innocence of Internet we go down this path too often. Remember how reckless, carefree and full of possibilities we were when we were children. Then we came of age and learnt to how behave and think and do things like Adults. On the way, we somehow became ... well, just boring. Remember, Internet is still a child. Hope we don't force it into becoming just another boring adult.
option_greek 14y ago
Considering the fact that this "innocent" video has cost 4 innocent lives and unrest at countless places, this is more about preventing anarchy than stifling free speech.

46 points by uvdiv 14y ago

uvdiv 14y ago

I know Google famously censored political speech in China until Sergey Brin made his stand [a], and it continues to censor videos in e.g. India [b] (blocking content which could provoke Hindu-Muslim violence). But in those places, the courts of those countries force them to censor; here, the censorship is voluntary, seemingly of their own initiative. Is there a precedent for this? [a] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin#Censorship_of_Google_in_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin#Censorship_of_Googl... [b] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/net-us-india-violence-internet-idUSBRE87K0NM20120821 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/net-us-india-viole...

mtgx 14y ago
They censored the DNC speech and who knows how many thousands or hundreds of thousands other videos. It may have been "automatic censorship" because of their idiotic system, but that's not exactly a very good excuse for such important (political, no less) videos and on such a large scale, is it?
- uvdiv 14y ago
  Yes, but in this case it's overtly political -- they are blocking videos on the basis of their speech content.
- raldi 14y ago
  The DNC thing never actually happened: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/05/michelle_obama_dnc_speech_why_did_youtube_flag_it_for_copyright_infringement_.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/05/michelle_... There's always a delay between the end of a livestream and the point where you can watch the prerecorded video. In this case, YouTube merely displayed the wrong error message during that delay.
calibraxis 14y ago
Does Google/YouTube proactively restrict content based on notions of intellectual property or other US interests?
leephillips 14y ago
"Is there a precedent for this?" There are many. Here's one from a few years ago: http://lee-phillips.org/youtube/ http://lee-phillips.org/youtube/

DamnYuppie 14y ago

I believe the license for the film was revoked. Which means it can't be distributed. So I am not sure this was all Google's idea. Regardless I find the erosion of free speech to be sad. We must never say or do anything to upset the Muslims...please...

Cushman 14y ago
What free speech? When has YouTube ever proposed not to censor videos on the basis of content?
- DamnYuppie 14y ago
  Free speech was a founding idea of the U.S. now we can't produce, protest, or say anything that upsets a certain group of people. That is not in any way shape or form "free speech". My comment was directed at that idea, not google or youtube.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    You have never had speech protections of any kind in any private forum. This is nothing new.
dbecker 14y ago
This isn't "erosion of free speech" in the conventional sense. Google isn't saying "you can't make this video." They are just saying they aren't going to deliver it. The principal of free speech never implied you have to repeat every communication that someone asks you to repeat.

doktrin 14y ago

This disturbs me on the grounds of "bad habit" precedent alone. Getting accustomed to self-censorship is almost as bad as having it mandated.

DanBC 14y ago
Do you shout "HELLO CUNTS!!!" every time you enter a building? Why is that form of self-censorship acceptable to you?
- pstuart 14y ago
  That's different and you (should) know it.
  - Cushman 14y ago
    How?
    - astine 14y ago
      Meta Comment: pstuart is technically correct, but I think it's much more useful to explain why something is the case than to simply accuse someone of willful ignorance. There's always the possibility that they, or someone else, genuinely does not know.
    - pstuart 14y ago
      Because your example doesn't give the members of the crowd a choice if they want to hear it. Nobody was forced to watch the movie.
      - Cushman 14y ago
        I was expecting something a little more convincing. That's a complete red herring; you never have the choice not to hear something once you've heard it. Does it help if I don't insult you unless you make eye contact with me? After all, if you didn't want to hear what I think about you, you didn't have to catch my eye.

ActVen 14y ago

Violence should never be allowed to become a useful weapon against free speech. When a company has built tools for self-expression that are widely used, they have a responsibility to commit to broad principles under difficult circumstances. Free speech principles aren't as widely protected across the globe as they are in the US, but that doesn't mean they are not very important to the advancement of society.

Cushman 14y ago
You're clouding the issue. "Free speech principles" as you describe them are not weakly protected elsewhere, they are not held. In particular, many -- most? -- enlightened Western democracies hold that hateful speech is not deserving of protection. Not because they're wishy-washy, but because they believe that's right. You're being closed-minded if you're not willing to accept the possibility that they're right.
- calibraxis 14y ago
  Yes, as someone from the US, I feel embarrassed when our free-speech rights are lorded over others. After the 1960's Civil Rights struggles, we probably do in fact have the best free speech protection. But it's kind of academic since we (for example) also imprison ourselves the most. (Both in rate and total. A severe stripping not only of speech but freedom and dignity too. And of course it's "political", whatever that means. It keeps many from voting post-slavery.) There's different forms of social control; it's multi-dimensional. In a top-down democracy with elected kings, it requires consistent struggle to improve things. We're very privileged, and unfortunately arrogant and militantly violent too. I mean, what are we doing in the middle east anyway, handing out flowers? Or killing people, breaking things and making sure we're their boss?
- ActVen 14y ago
  Your argument that I am being "closed-minded" because I believe in the value of free speech is amusing. Valuing broad free speech rights is a characteristic of an open mind. I never said that I didn't "accept the possibility that they're right". I just don't believe that an organization should be in charge of deciding what is "hateful" and what isn't. I happen to believe that free expression is critical to our moral and scientific growth as a species.

anuraj 14y ago

I think they censored the video because US interest is involved. The more Islamic world engages this video as a rallying point, the greater the security threat to US. Free speech has its costs too.

stevoski 14y ago

In my opinion, Google (as YouTube) is not obliged to show a video. The owners of the video still have the option to upload it elsewhere, or to host it themselves, or to distribute it via a torrent.

nhebb 14y ago
If it's straight-out political censorship, then they should rename it OurTube instead of YouTube. I say "if" because I'm not familiar with the video. I've seen a lot of meta reports about it, but I haven't seen a summary of the video's content.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  It is basically horrible acting, insanely bad stories, worse CGI effect (really, you could not afford to have the actors walk on actual sand so you just bluescreened the entire scene???). Oh and the content is essentially right wing christian propaganda.
  - dbecker 14y ago
    I think calling it "right wing christian propoganda" is generous. It isn't trying to be persuasive... it is just a few scenes depicting Muhammad as an idiot and philanderer.

pfortuny 14y ago

I shall not try to say this is an easy problem but it reminds me of people blaming the shopper for getting their cashbox robbed after leaving money there ('it is your fault...').

ck2 14y ago

In the USA there are limits to free speech. You cannot incite a riot, that is a crime. These videos are inciting riots, not a theory, it's a fact (though anything would have triggered these riots, they just wanted an excuse and it's a tiny minority who are the most vocal). "free speech" is an illusion in the USA, it doesn't actually exist as an unrestricted right - if you disagree, try screaming "fire" in a packed movie theater and see what happens to you, or do something as asinine like threaten the president or make a joke about the TSA while waiting in line at the airport.

twoodfin 14y ago
You have a profound misunderstanding of free speech rights in the U.S. Yes, you cannot incite a riot. You cannot say "My followers: Riot! Smash everything!" But because something you say could or does cause a riot is not reason enough to ban your speech. Otherwise you get something like the so-called "Heckler's Veto", whereby people who merely disagree with your speech can make themselves enough of a nuisance to have it silenced.
- ck2 14y ago
  So they can tiptoe around exact instructions and say "watch this and then decide what punishment you should inflict" ? Why are people picking youtube videos as freedom-of-speech and not the right to joke about their suitcase being a bomb to the TSA at the airport? Why is that censorship okay and not youtube?
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    So they can tiptoe around exact instructions and say "watch this and then decide what punishment you should inflict" ? Now you're starting to shade things into a gray area. At some point you need a judge or jury to decide whether speech is incitement to violence or not. And I don't believe the video in question is (even obliquely) advocating any particular action. It's just grossly offensive to some people. Why are people picking youtube videos as freedom-of-speech and not the right to joke about their suitcase being a bomb to the TSA at the airport? Why is that censorship okay and not youtube? Like your other examples of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or threatening the President, there are certain forms of "expression" that can be restricted or punished, not because they're expressing particular ideas, but because they have a direct, causal connection to harm. You can come up with a thousand examples: It's not "free speech" for a doctor to write you a prescription for a lethal dose of a drug. It's not "free speech" for a police officer to tell you you're obligated to talk to him without a lawyer. It's not "free speech" to lie on the witness stand. "Free speech" doesn't mean you can't be punished or restricted from saying anything, but it does mean that absent any direct harm to the rights of others, you're free to express ideas in any reasonable manner. This shouldn't be too hard to understand.

pagejim 14y ago

Internet, being the most widely reaching medium along with the ease of publishing, becomes quite attractive to anyone who hasn't got the means ( money/influence ) to get content published on more traditional mediums like Newspaper, Magazines and TV. Hence you will find all kinds of material on the Internet including all kinds of hate speeches against all the religions, ideologies, personalities etc. Google being an indexer of Web would naturally present such material if you go looking for it. It's not Google's fault nor should it be its worry. After all, you can't really blame or shoot the messenger. In a way, Internet has had more of a leveling effect on the kind of content and information that is available to common people in the world ( at least for those who have some kind of access to it ). If for any bizarre reason, Internet starts to become more censor prone, it would loose its magical value. It is the most important invention of our times. It's somehow better if we don't have control over it. Just sit back and try to recollect the amazing pace with which it has changed and how beautifully it has sustained itself. It has a evolution path of its own. The logic inside my head says that it was correct when Google removed the video from Libya/Egypt. But there is something in my heart that says that we would loose the innocence of Internet we go down this path too often. Remember how reckless, carefree and full of possibilities we were when we were children. Then we came of age and learnt to how behave and think and do things like Adults. On the way, we somehow became ... well, just boring. Remember, Internet is still a child. Hope we don't force it into becoming just another boring adult.

option_greek 14y ago

Considering the fact that this "innocent" video has cost 4 innocent lives and unrest at countless places, this is more about preventing anarchy than stifling free speech.