Google Reveals "Terrorism Video" Removals

jones_supa writes "Google has revealed it removed about 640 videos from YouTube that allegedly promoted terrorism over the second half of 2011 after complaints from the UK's Association of Chief Police Officers. The news was contained in its latest Transparency Report which discloses requests by international authorities to remove or hand over material. YouTube had also rejected many other state's requests for action. Overall, Google summed it had received 461 court orders covering a total of 6,989 items between July and December 2011. From those, it said 68% of the orders were complied with. Google added that it had received a further 546 informal requests covering 4,925 items, of which it had agreed to 43% of the cases."

Comments

Censorship, much?

[evorster]

Why is it that some people believe that if they hide away from something that something ceases to exist?

Re:Censorship, much?

[zero.kalvin]

I guess they know that, but they want to make it harder for anyone to find these things. Now I understand if it is regarding material on how to construct IEDs or similar things. But if these videos promotes terrorism then why not let them? Look at this from my point of view, arabic is my fluent language and I have easy access to that sort of material, but I am not going to be convinced by these videos just because I saw them. However there is a positive side for this, by hearing what they have to say, I gain more information on them and the way they think. So for me the average person I can better articulate my objections to these people, and be able to say with knowledge why these people are bad, and not just "they hate us for our freedom" - Sorry to break this to you, they don't hate you for your freedom. Now for you, who is not from that region, or someone who doesn't speaks arabic, you should have access for these videos because how else would you understand them if they were not presented to you ? The state is stupid to think that people would suddenly resort to terrorism just because they saw some bearded asshole with a machine gun and screaming "death to the infidels" --- Not letting you see that is more dangerous than you actually seeing and understand what he is saying. ~~~Rant over

Re:Censorship, much?

[zero.kalvin]

Terrorism is a problem, but bombing the shit out of them right away is not the god sent solution. Understanding them, understanding the motivations behind what they do is very important to defeat them. If you don't understand why they hate you, then how can you destroy them ? Or more importantly what is your moral justification for killing them if you don't know why they are doing what they are doing? For me it sounds as if you don't care enough to know, and content with delegating these issues to your government ( which is the stupidest thing anyone can ever do), and this in my opinion is even worse than a bad argument.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Artraze]

Regardless of why they might say they 'hate' the US (infidels, meddling, etc.) the real reason is, at the end of the day, not a whole lot different from why the US 'hates' the terrorists: They want an enemy.

They have a lot of social and political problems, and because they cannot fix them (and really, do not want to because that would require advocating their control) they create a war. It lets the leaders accumulate more power while giving the people someone to blame for their problems other than their leaders.

Why the US? As the 'most powerful' country it's easy to come up with reasons (and not necessarily inaccurate ones!) that it could have negatively impacted people (e.g. selling arms to Israel, trade stuff, cultural influence, etc). That also means that you are expected to lose your war, which is nice because it means you don't really have to try that hard because you can also blame your failings on them being too powerful. This gives a bonus of making you then underdog and any small victory huge. The are also a few other things like being non-islamic and well known and all that.
(As you'll note, the basic ideas here are what makes terrorists, in turn, a great enemy for the US: far away, impossible to actually defeat, and different(==bad).)

Re:Censorship, much?

[fishthegeek]

Bull crap. Thomas Jefferson was a president who had to handle Muslim piracy with warships, which escalated into the First Barbary War. The Europeans didn't have any stake in the middle east when the Moors invaded Europe, which created the sentiment of containment that sparked the crusades. You need to stop drinking the kool-aid. Many other countries have steadfastly supported Israel since it's re-establishment in 1948, and the list of countries that support, and trade with Israel is huge (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel) so simply stating that our support of Israel is causal in certain groups hating the United States is nothing more than ill informed nonsense. Some (certainly not all) Muslim states have ALWAYS engaged in violence against non-Muslims, and it will always be that way. I write all of this as a vet of the Persian Gulf War; so I have been there and, I will also say that some of the most hospitable, kind, and wonderful people I have ever met were also Muslims in the middle east. I do not want anyone to get the impression that I have a grudge against Islam because I do not. That said, history isn't kind to the idea that certain Islamic states (or groups if you prefer) hate us for any reason other than because we're not them.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Bigby]

US monetary and political support for Israel dwarfs all other countries combined. You follow up your argument that saying they hate us because we aren't them. So why don't they focus their attention on Switzerland? The Vatican? Canada?

We are the big fish in transgressions against their will. Whether their will should be tolerated or not is another story, but the transgressions are the cause, not just because we are free or we simply exist.

Re:Censorship, much?

[cpu6502]

Google also censored the 16-year-old girl who was reading from her Bible the passages that forbid gay marriage. (They claimed reading a text that has been revered by billions of humans beings over 6000 years is "hate speech".) Sometimes they are a little heavy-handed with their removals. Meanwhile they left the videos calling her a "cunt" and threatening to murder her as okay.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange the translation I have of that text doesnt exclude gay marriage. Btw the text also isn't 6000 years old and I fear her special translation is far younger.

Re:Censorship, much?

[Grygus]

Hate speech doesn't stop being hate speech because someone writes it down. It also doesn't stop being hate speech because a whole lot of people agree with it. The Bible is less than 500 years old. If people did not submit the other videos for removal, then it's not a judgment call on Google's part.

I have no idea how your post got modded insightful.

Re:Censorship, much?

[reboot246]

The difference is clear: hate speech is targeted speech towards a section of the community, or population.

You mean that it's targeted towards one of many "protected" groups. Not all groups have such protection. She's in two of those groups - white and Christian. You can say whatever you want about them and nobody will accuse you of anything. Equal protection under the law? I think not.

THAT'S why hate speech laws (and censorship) have no place in society.

Terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Once upon a time, the term 'terrorism' was used for attacks that inflict terror upon the population. Now, it seems to be used indiscriminately and anyone you don't agree with is a terrorist.

Re:Terrorism

[__aaeihw9960]

I find it interesting that the words terrorist and troll have evolved to mean roughly the same thing.

Terrorist - someone I don't agree with - probably lives somewhere sandy.

Troll: someone who I don’t agree with - probably lives in a basement somewhere.

Re:free speech

[sideslash]

There's no legal guarantee of free speech in this context. The (metaphorical) microphone belongs to Google, since they are hosting everything and letting people upload their stuff at no cost. As long as they can make money off of what people say into their microphone, they'll let them keep talking. And if Google decides they occasionally want to grab their microphone back and make somebody stop talking into it, that's their right. People are free to complain and criticize such treatment, but that doesn't affect Google's right to do what they want with their microphone (metaphor for website).

Ironically, it could arguably be a violation of freedom if Google didn't have the right to censor their own website.

Re:Let the terrorists speak

[funwithBSD]

No free speech issues here at all. The service is privately owned, they can decide who can show what on their service. You have no rights on their private service.

Now, perhaps you can be mad about who they choose not to serve, but they have the rights, not the people uploading the images.