Google Rejects Australian Censorship Proposal

Xiroth writes "Google has rejected overtures from the Australian government to censor YouTube clips that had been given an RC rating by Australian classification authority, the OFLC. According to a Google spokesperson: 'YouTube has clear policies about what content is not allowed, for example hate speech and pornography, and we enforce these, but we can't give any assurances that we would voluntarily remove all Refused Classification content from YouTube. The scope of RC is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information. RC includes the grey realms of material instructing in any crime from [painting] graffiti to politically controversial crimes such as euthanasia, and exposing these topics to public debate is vital for democracy.'"

Comments

This is getting interesting!

[openfrog]

Now that the Australian government finds itself to be on the same side than China on censorship, I hope their legislators take a second look on the path they have taken for a while, and this apply to a few other Western parliaments as well...

Re:This is getting interesting!

[maxume]

Expect a corporation to look after its own interests.

Take it as a happy surprise when one looks after yours.

Don't rely on the corporation to look after your interests.

It isn't much of a puzzle.

Re:This is getting interesting!

[HungryHobo]

Lots of people complain about Endless September.

But those communities are still there. at least many of them are.
they just look small and puny next to the megacorps.

Re:This is getting interesting!

[biryokumaru]

I think the central issue here is that people view the internet as a commodity, and use it as they would a tool. They don't see their usage as part of a message, or to have intrinsic meaning.

As an analogy, let's talk about my car buying habits. I buy American. I've had 4 Chevys over the past 4 years. They didn't break down, I just went through them for various reasons. And I loved them all. In particular I miss the Cobalt, it was nice.

But then there are people who have been driving the same Volvo for the past 30 odd years. Or have cars that they've personally put 300,000 miles on. That's great. That was a sound economical investment.

But what was the message? It was just a tool to them. How far can they drive for their investment? How many years and how many miles can they go before they need to put in more money? Their message was that the car was a tool, just a means to an end.

My cars were the ends. I could work on them (I miss the old Corvette, spewing coolant like some B movie gore flick), they were fun to drive, and they were each a learning experience. I didn't buy them to get me any further than into the driver's seat.

Now look at the internet. For many of the people here, it's the ends. They work in an online business, or they have a vested interest in the underlying technologies (hardware or software) and furthering their knowledge of the internal workings thereof is their real intent. Honestly, how many of us have internet to check Slashdot? Slashdot is a nice bonus, but we don't have internet just to check Slashdot. Slashdot is not our ends.

But that's what the internet is to "normal people." It's just a tool they use to check Facebook or Twitter or their AOL email. They use the internet like some people use their cars, to get where they're going. They don't buy the car because it's American made and it'll support their fellow countrymen and they can work on it themselves and so on and so forth. They buy the car because they want to get to work, or school or the football game. It's just a car.

And that's the problem. To some people, it's just the internet. It's not a technology that has revolutionized the entire world. It's just the way to get where they want to be. Like a car.

Re:This is getting interesting!

[tehcyder]

Also worrying is the fact that YouTube considers itself infrastructure for "free speech". What if they decide to broaden their definitions of "hate speech" and "pornography"?

Who cares? If you can't find enough hate speech and pornography elsewhere on the internet, you're really not trying.
Just because YouTube is big and popular doesn't mean it's the whole internet. It's like complaining that the Disney Channel is engaging in censorship by not showing hard core pr0n and horror movies. They're commercial organisations, it's up to them.

Re:This is getting interesting!

[eiMichael]

How could we, as citizens of the global Internet connected society, go about moving back towards an egalitarian Internet?

We as citizens simply cannot. We have very little control of the infrastructure of the Internet. It just takes 1 popular politician, and we could have a great big firewall.

The only way to avoid and/or remove censorship from the Internet is to remove the idea that censorship is acceptable. But that idea is just too radical for the average schmuck who thinks he shouldn't have to even be aware that other people think differently than him/her. It has become okay to censor. From "hate speech" to "pornography" to anarchy cookbooks.

But as I'm typing this I realize that perhaps a return to walled gardens for the majority of users could be a good thing. That way the politicians and their vocal self-absorbed constituents would never be aware of the stuff they want censored.

Re:This is getting interesting!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet is supposed to be free. It is supposed to allow equal access to data by equal parties. The existence of megacorporations in this space undermines the original spirit of the Internet, and provides just another way to turn the once-egalitarian Internet into just another tilted media outlet like Fox News.

I remember the days of usenet, when IRC was the main form of IM, when gopher provided beautiful cruft-free content and I pine.

Your memory doesn't go back far enough. Remember that the internet started as a DARPA project? Remember when it was SAGE? Remember when it was ARPANET? The original "spirit" of the internet was for US defense communications.

Freedom is not free. Freedom is not unlimited. You want to be free to say and do what you want? Do it on your own site. Google is giving you access to THEIR site (youtube) to use as they see fit, not as you see fit. You want more freedom than what they offer? Make your own. You are free to do that.

Re:This is getting interesting!

[element-o.p.]

I think you are confusing the issue here. Google (and therefore YouTube), as a private entity, has the right to say what they will and will not allow on the forums they create. Don't like their censorship? Then build your own forum. I have, and found myself forced to censor the forum because of the spammers -- in fact, I ended up shutting it down because it was just too much work to maintain. A completely free forum is anything but the "cruft-free content" for which you pine nowadays. Back when the Internet was limited to researches and academics who lived by a code of professional ethics, it was possible to have a pretty much "hands-off" network. That's not the case anymore.

But, IMHO, that's not the real issue. The real issue is that governments, including China, Australia and, unfortunately, the U.S. where I live, keep trying to push their own legal requirements on the Internet as well. Rather than simply saying, "anyone in our country who violates these laws will be prosecuted", they are trying to force the Google's, the eBay's, and so on to police the networks for them. France freaked out a while ago because people were selling WWII memorabilia that had Nazi logos on them (which violated their "hate speech" laws). Someone in Illinois sued Spamhaus for including a domain that the plaintiff owned in a blacklist. Spamhaus elected not to travel to the U.S. to fight the legal battle, and therefore lost by default. That's just two examples from the so-called "Free World" It's even worse if you want to think about the mid-east, the banana republics, etc.

Re:This is getting interesting!

[ultranova]

And that's the problem. To some people, it's just the internet. It's not a technology that has revolutionized the entire world. It's just the way to get where they want to be. Like a car.

The Internet is not a car. The Internet is the very concept of a road itself.

Google still not evil

[N3tRunner]

As Google grows and expands into different markets I personally am more and more suspicious of their activities, especially the tracking that is inherent in their Chrome browser. However, there are constantly things like this were Google seems to be standing behind its principle of "Don't be evil". I hope that they never forget it.

Re:Google still not evil

[garcia]

However, there are constantly things like this were Google seems to be standing behind its principle of "Don't be evil". I hope that they never forget it.

I think there's a difference between "doing no evil," and deciding that they don't want to police the Internet for specific countries. I have a feeling that while their words say one thing, this has less to do with their mantra than the simple fact that they have better things to waste their time doing than the bidding of Australia's ridiculous government.

Re:familiar

[daveatneowindotnet]

Exactly, Google is grand standing against the much less menacing Australian Government. The only reason pulled out of China was a) they were the kings of the internet like they are back home and b) an attack that came from China (potentially). PR move in my mind

The key word (from TFA) is "voluntarily"

[Rogerborg]

Google are just playing the coquette. They'll give it up all right, they'll give it up hard, but for the sake of their reputation, they want three dates, flowers, and a subpoena first.

Re:Can an Australian brother...

[Kratisto]

They're so laid back that they forgot to keep an eye on the kinds of people that like to go into politics.

This Conroy guy?

[Angst Badger]

Fuck him. For any public official in a western democracy to be openly clamoring for things to be more like China is a disgrace, to say nothing of the corrosive effect it has on liberties elsewhere. Here's hoping that the good people of Australia will feed him to the sharks.

What is hate speech?

[howardd21]

I am not a member or supporter in anyway of the KKK, Nazis, etc., but why is certain speech categorized as "hate" and therefore not allowed to be even stated? Who decides what is hate? That whole movement makes me nervous...

And will this be like the porn guy that was convicted in Florida, though he lived in California, for distributing videos via the internet. If I complain about Barak Obama and make a statement that includes his race, am I suddenly guilty somewhere on some level? If I am a religious leader and have a youtube video that states a conviction homosexuals are in danger of hell, am I guilty of hate speech? If not now, how about 5 years from now when the social winds change?

Re:What is hate speech?

[GrubLord]

He might've been mentally ill, rather than crippled.

Plenty of people are very uncomfortable around the mentally handicapped, and lash out in fear.

Re:Eternal September

[whoever57]

You're looking at it through rose tinted glasses. There have been walled gardens such as AOL practically right from the "start".

The AOL example is not appropriate. People may have chosen to use AOL, but they had a choice. While other, uncensored, alternatives exist this is very different from what the Australian government want, which is to remove the choice of uncensored access to the Internet.

Re:Eternal September

[sakdoctor]

No, it's completely appropriate. Much of the government censorship is aimed at web 2.0 type constructs, which people willingly choose.

But these are completely centralised, and much less censorship resistant than the older internet technologies that GP was lamenting the loss of.

Re:Eternal September

[MindlessAutomata]

Not to mention, the same idiocy that allows AOL to exist is, fundamentally, the same process that drives democracy--individual choice. Whether my purchasing or voting, there's a similar result--the idiots help set up the only (terrible) game in town.

If you can afford to, don't ban hate speech.

[copponex]

Most of the western world has a sufficient police force to allow all kinds of backwards hate speech to exist. Some people are bigots, and there's not much you can do about it. Providing a passion for their narrative, by trying to suppress their free speech or incarcerating them for saying something, helps them more than it hurts them. It gives them the attention that they crave, an in some ways legitimizes their "struggle."

Here in the states this is one thing we get mostly right. You can parade around in white sheets, and say nigger and kike all you want. The rest of us will be over here, chuckling at your foolish costume and face tattoos, while the FBI continues to build a profile of your idiocy.

Then, if you actually follow through with the nonsense, hate crime laws will put you away for a few decades. In essence, you're welcome to continue acting like an idiot, but if you actually hurt someone you're going to pay dearly for the crime.

I only wish we could apply the same principles to drug users and other non-violent criminals.

Re:familiar

[dangitman]

You actually wrote "frak"? In a post about government censorship?

Re:Can an Australian brother...

[epp_b]

So, they're not banning it, technically, they're simply making it impossible to sell in a legal manner.

So, exactly, how gullible are the Australian people and/or how stupid are their politicians for anyone to think these two things are different from each other?

Re:Can an Australian brother...

[stimpleton]

Don't confuse laid-back with liberal. Australia is laid back, but is also one of the most conservative populaces. There are oasis of left wing attitudes in say Melbourne.

In the US, the Rosa Parks seat-on-a-bus incident took place in the 50's. In Australia the film Romper Stomper is based around events in the 1990's. Consider that film and the Cronulla Riots where average joe office workers left their desks and stormed a Sydney beach all because of an altercation between some immigrants and some life guards. The Cronulla beach riots happened in 2005.

Australia is conservative, not just its adminsistration.