10 ms·

Google gives UK government “super flagger” status for YouTube?

186 points by choult 13y ago

Havoc 13y ago
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.
mtgx 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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.
guylhem 13y ago
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-spawning-anti-muslim-youtube-video-sparked-violent-protests-violate-company-terms-article-1.1160370 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/google-remove-riot-spa... 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 13y ago
  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.
  - Crito 13y ago
    "Inspired" violence is a pathetically low bar that should be rejected by anybody with any interest in free speech. Scorsese's Taxi Driver inspired John Hinckley Jr, but no reasonable person that believes in a free society would think Scorsese in any way or capacity responsible for the assassination attempt on Reagan.
    - lclarkmichalek 13y ago
      Apologies, I'll be less nuanced for you. Hitler would have got nowhere if he was mute.
      - Crito 13y ago
        I'm not saying that speech cannot be used to organize great crimes. I am saying that the bar for responsibility or fault is nowhere even near "inspired".
        hahainternet 13y ago
        "goad"? "facilitate"? What's the boundary?
        Crito 13y ago
        Either of those, or "inciting", seem like reasonable boundaries when it is goading/facilitating/inciting specific illegal action.
clouds 13y ago
Do no evil. Do not censor Chinese searches. Do not censor British searches. Do not open backdoors to NSA. Do not offshore taxes. Do not buy all robotics companies.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
r00fus 13y ago
"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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    You mean a government can't troll? :/
    - basicallydan 13y ago
      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.
- magicalist 13y ago
  Yeah, it will be interesting to see what is actually taken down here. It would be nice if they did a chillingeffects.org thing but for the specific requests by the UK (including all the ones that were flagged but they ended up not taking down).
- 13y ago
devx 13y ago
> 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 13y ago
  > 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
slowmover 13y ago
David Cameron must have recently watched the first episode of Black Mirror.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  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.
CodeMage 13y ago
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!
- magicalist 13y ago
  That's what they do for removing videos in most countries.
  - kaybe 13y ago
    Which is sadly a good thing for many people because there are non-hard workarounds if the video is visible in many locations.
- sentenza 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    > 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.
Cless 13y ago
Given what we've seen, I'm not inclined to believe that the UK government will use this newfound power for good.
jukvic 13y ago
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.
pasbesoin 13y ago
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.
trevoragilbert 13y ago
"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.
Jugurtha 13y ago
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?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- SixSigma 13y ago
  We've had terrorism on UK soil for 1000's of years. You may even have heard of The Gunpowder Plot. Free media means that the govt. has lost control of the conversation, they want it back. The key sentence in that piece is ' the government wanted more power to deal with material "that may not be illegal but certainly is unsavoury and may not be the sort of material that people would want to see or receive".' One man will decide what 60million people "want to see". I want to watch people die, in horrible and disturbing circumstances. http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie who is anyone to deny me that freedom. The government already raised the spectre by trying to have Facebook remove a link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10395816/David-Cameron-condemns-Facebooks-beheading-films.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10395816/Davi... It's Daily Mail politics, by people who don't understand.
  - Jugurtha 13y ago
    _We've had terrorism on UK soil for 1000's of years. You may even have heard of The Gunpowder Plot._ An assassination attempt on a King few centuries ago, oh my... I agree partly with you on the liberty side, that's why I said I don't like what Google is doing (i.e: The way they are doing things) and by extension, the way the UK is doing things.. The way the Government here is doing things: Watch whatever you want, but if we catch you, you're screwd. _I want to watch people die, in horrible and disturbing circumstances. http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie who is anyone to deny me that freedom._ :D http://reddit.com/r/watchkidsgetfucked http://reddit.com/r/watchkidsgetfucked Who's anyone to deny them that freedom, huh.. PS: If anyone of you clicked on that link - which I really expect to be a 404-, I hope you're using TOR, VPN, SSH tunneling, God mode encryption and really make sure every packet your machine is sending and receiving is immaculate :) PPS: Oh, and if you clicked, you're a bad person..
rayiner 13y ago
I always found it interesting that this sort of thing gets a more tepid negative reaction on HN than copyright related takedowns.
bo1024 13y ago
So the UK government is finally as important/powerful as Universal Music Group.
WD-42 13y ago
This website's layout makes me want to cry.
Zenst 13y ago
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 13y ago
I thought there is already a word for that.
undoware 13y ago
Let's flag them right back, shall we?
- mangeletti 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    No, it's a euphemism for concerted political action. Perhaps I should have said 'capture the flag'.
awt 13y ago
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.
oth3r 13y ago
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.
clienthunter 13y ago
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?
buzaga41 13y ago
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
leke 13y ago
I wonder when FaceBook will be doing this?
thisiswrong 13y ago
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-mods-bury-glenn-greenwalds-story-gchqnsa-use-internet-to-destroy-reputations.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140226/11344026358/reddit... [2] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula...
benched 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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.
s3r3nity 13y ago
Lulz -- can't wait to see how the Google fanboi circles come out and spin this one.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
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.
frade33 13y ago
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.
jotm 13y ago
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 :-)).
mhixson 13y ago
"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.

186 points by choult 13y ago

Havoc 13y ago

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.

mtgx 13y ago

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 13y ago
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.

guylhem 13y ago

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-spawning-anti-muslim-youtube-video-sparked-violent-protests-violate-company-terms-article-1.1160370 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/google-remove-riot-spa... 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 13y ago
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.
- Crito 13y ago
  "Inspired" violence is a pathetically low bar that should be rejected by anybody with any interest in free speech. Scorsese's Taxi Driver inspired John Hinckley Jr, but no reasonable person that believes in a free society would think Scorsese in any way or capacity responsible for the assassination attempt on Reagan.
  - lclarkmichalek 13y ago
    Apologies, I'll be less nuanced for you. Hitler would have got nowhere if he was mute.
    - Crito 13y ago
      I'm not saying that speech cannot be used to organize great crimes. I am saying that the bar for responsibility or fault is nowhere even near "inspired".
      - hahainternet 13y ago
        "goad"? "facilitate"? What's the boundary?
        Crito 13y ago
        Either of those, or "inciting", seem like reasonable boundaries when it is goading/facilitating/inciting specific illegal action.

clouds 13y ago

Do no evil. Do not censor Chinese searches. Do not censor British searches. Do not open backdoors to NSA. Do not offshore taxes. Do not buy all robotics companies.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

r00fus 13y ago

"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 13y ago
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 13y ago
  You mean a government can't troll? :/
  - basicallydan 13y ago
    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.
magicalist 13y ago
Yeah, it will be interesting to see what is actually taken down here. It would be nice if they did a chillingeffects.org thing but for the specific requests by the UK (including all the ones that were flagged but they ended up not taking down).
13y ago

devx 13y ago

> 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 13y ago
> 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

slowmover 13y ago

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

venomsnake 13y ago
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.

CodeMage 13y ago

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!

magicalist 13y ago
That's what they do for removing videos in most countries.
- kaybe 13y ago
  Which is sadly a good thing for many people because there are non-hard workarounds if the video is visible in many locations.
sentenza 13y ago
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 13y ago
  > 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.

Cless 13y ago

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

jukvic 13y ago

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.

pasbesoin 13y ago

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.

trevoragilbert 13y ago

"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.

Jugurtha 13y ago

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?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
SixSigma 13y ago
We've had terrorism on UK soil for 1000's of years. You may even have heard of The Gunpowder Plot. Free media means that the govt. has lost control of the conversation, they want it back. The key sentence in that piece is ' the government wanted more power to deal with material "that may not be illegal but certainly is unsavoury and may not be the sort of material that people would want to see or receive".' One man will decide what 60million people "want to see". I want to watch people die, in horrible and disturbing circumstances. http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie who is anyone to deny me that freedom. The government already raised the spectre by trying to have Facebook remove a link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10395816/David-Cameron-condemns-Facebooks-beheading-films.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10395816/Davi... It's Daily Mail politics, by people who don't understand.
- Jugurtha 13y ago
  _We've had terrorism on UK soil for 1000's of years. You may even have heard of The Gunpowder Plot._ An assassination attempt on a King few centuries ago, oh my... I agree partly with you on the liberty side, that's why I said I don't like what Google is doing (i.e: The way they are doing things) and by extension, the way the UK is doing things.. The way the Government here is doing things: Watch whatever you want, but if we catch you, you're screwd. _I want to watch people die, in horrible and disturbing circumstances. http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie http://reddit.com/r/watchpeopledie who is anyone to deny me that freedom._ :D http://reddit.com/r/watchkidsgetfucked http://reddit.com/r/watchkidsgetfucked Who's anyone to deny them that freedom, huh.. PS: If anyone of you clicked on that link - which I really expect to be a 404-, I hope you're using TOR, VPN, SSH tunneling, God mode encryption and really make sure every packet your machine is sending and receiving is immaculate :) PPS: Oh, and if you clicked, you're a bad person..

rayiner 13y ago

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

bo1024 13y ago

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

WD-42 13y ago

This website's layout makes me want to cry.

Zenst 13y ago

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 13y ago

I thought there is already a word for that.

undoware 13y ago

Let's flag them right back, shall we?

mangeletti 13y ago
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 13y ago
  No, it's a euphemism for concerted political action. Perhaps I should have said 'capture the flag'.

awt 13y ago

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.

oth3r 13y ago

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.

clienthunter 13y ago

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?

buzaga41 13y ago

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

leke 13y ago

I wonder when FaceBook will be doing this?

thisiswrong 13y ago

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-mods-bury-glenn-greenwalds-story-gchqnsa-use-internet-to-destroy-reputations.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140226/11344026358/reddit... [2] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula...

benched 13y ago

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 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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.

s3r3nity 13y ago

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

InclinedPlane 13y ago

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.

frade33 13y ago

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.

jotm 13y ago

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 :-)).

mhixson 13y ago

"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.