Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Reveals "Terrorism Video" Removals

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the take-it-down dept.

Censorship 194

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."

cancel ×

194 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Censorship, much? (3, Insightful)

evorster (2664141) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359387)

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

Re:Censorship, much? (2)

NettiWelho (1147351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359503)

I believe its called 'creating an illusion'.

Re:Censorship, much? (5, Insightful)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359523)

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? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40359623)

You need to watch a terrorism video in order to object to terrorism? Listen, I'm not in favor of censorship, but that's a pretty weak argument. The only people I know who think the terrorists hate us for our freedoms are willfully ignorant.

Re:Censorship, much? (3, Insightful)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359781)

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? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360863)

If you don't understand why they hate you, then how can you destroy them ?

Sarin gas.

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360869)

Actually to me " more importantly what is your moral justification for killing them if you don't know why they are doing what they are doing?" Actually seems like it should reasonably describe the terrorists in most cases.

Oh sure they get our media (which even we would often like to avoid as it doesn't represent us or our interests well) and crap we want to sell them... But what do they really know about us? Oh sure they get lots of crap from our government (which much like our media lots of us would love to see change) and our companies which have often run rough-shod over them... But it does that to us as well... Few if any of them really know what it is like to live in our nations... Yet they have no problem trying to kill us from time to time.

Understanding and empathy are easy solutions to lots of the worlds problems. However we tend to be self-important and myopic on issues, so this rarely happens. 'Live and let live' is just not something many people seem to be able to do.

Re:Censorship, much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40360981)

Um, disregarding the ones who kill civilians on marketplaces, most of these "terrorists" are actually killing foreign occupational troops, and hence you can cell them freedom fighters.
I know it is hard when your boys get killed and mutilated by IED's, but face it, you are the Occupators and they are the resistance.
What would you do if, say, the Russians or the Chinese were to occupy that US? Wave Chinese or Russian flags at them and welcome your new overlords???

Re:Censorship, much? (3, Interesting)

Loughla (2531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359625)

I've always wondered this, but my own investigations have proved futile:

Sorry to break this to you, they don't hate you for your freedom

So, if they don't hate us for our freedoms (I'm with you on this point - that's the whitewashed, political reason), what do they hate us for? Is it our economic policies? Our military strategies? What is it?

Because I'm at a total loss, and I can't get any real information about this in the states. Why did the Islamist extreme folks start wanting us dead? Who kicked that off, and what the hell is it all about?

Re:Censorship, much? (-1, Troll)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359679)

Why did the Islamist extreme folks start wanting us dead?

The base reason, is that we're strong, and have a non-Islamic state....and the koran tells them they must kill the infidels...

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40359987)

I am not a muslim, but I can tell you without a doubt that nowhere in the Quran, it says that the 'infidels' (people with other religious or atheist views) should be killed.

A quick quote of the Quran says this about the prohibition of murder:'Take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.'
The words of Allah: 'Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, We have given his heir authority: but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the law)'

There are verses that point in this direction, but when placed in their historical context, they are more of a permission to fight the terrorists. One could however argue that the US has been terrorizing the Middle East for the past 70 years, as one of the posters below pointed out. However, I think it is very simplistic to view these verses as a permission to kill anyone anywhere.

Please educate yourself a bit before making comments like we're strong and they must kill us, or they hate us for our freedom. All I see is political indoctrination. Not exactly a sign of a freedom loving nation...

So no, your Islamic neighbor is not out to kill you, only a couple of simpleton idiots who are as indoctrinated as you apparently are.
My apologies if I offended you, but it makes me sad to read things like this over and over again. No wonder we can't all be friends...

Re:Censorship, much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40360367)

I am not a muslim, but I can tell you without a doubt that nowhere in the Quran, it says that the 'infidels' (people with other religious or atheist views) should be killed.

Maybe you're not a muslim, but you are a liar as well as an apologist for a murderous religion that seeks to spread itself by the sword.

Re:Censorship, much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40360483)

Any quotes on that? I'd be happy to respond...

Re:Censorship, much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40360791)

"Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given ... and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued."

Just one of many. There are literally dozens, and IN CONTEXT*, they do in fact promote spreading Islam by force.

* Note that a common rebuttal is to say "well in X's holy book they say to fight too!". Of course this does nothing to justify the Koran's language, but if you actually read the response in context it is either

a) metaphorical, or
b) referring to some specific people rather than followers of the faith as a whole. IE if I took a quote from the Bible that said "kill all of those who do not worship me" and it came from some wicked king, yet I tried to pass it off as words from Jesus, I'd be dishonest.

Re:Censorship, much? (5, Informative)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359695)

Because of our involvement and activism in the middle east. We have steadfastly supported Israel since its creation, we invaded Iraq and toppled its government, we have participated in the overthrow of Iran's government, etc etc. We've messed with and in many cases toppled with the national governments in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, and others.

We've been dicking around in their business for 70 years. It's easy for the US to send some troops and equipment over and have a massive influence by installing dictators, killing people, etc. - all while pretending it's perfectly acceptable. They don't have the resources to do that, so we get car bombs.

Re:Censorship, much? (3, Insightful)

fishthegeek (943099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360311)

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 [wikipedia.org] ) 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? (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360481)

>>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.
>>>

I fail to see how events of 200 or 800 years ago have any relevance to present events. The young men who join terrorist armies are not fighting because of some ancient war. They are fighting because of *present* U.S. on Arab slaughters that are within their living memory.

Re:Censorship, much? (1, Informative)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360893)

Those who refuse to learn from history are condemmed to repeat it.

Just because people in your age group feel that events 200 years ago have no meaning to them does not mean other cultures feel the same way. In part, Jews have a worldwide problem because many Christian people hold a grudge against something 2000 years ago. Conflicts today in many cases rooted in conflicts many years ago. Irish and Scottish independence is rooted in events more than 600 years ago and the brutality that was inflicted upon them by England. We may have seen the end (for now?) of Irish violence, but there is still resentment.

The formation of Israel may have been a mistake, but it was a mistake that was designed in the aftermath of WW I. There are two choices today in reality, either the continued support of a Jewish state or the destruction of it. There is no real "third solution" which would involve Israel becoming an Arab state or some type of temporary co-existance on the same land. Israel will be a battleground until their neighbors accept it and live with this acceptance for a couple of generations. There can be no co-existance when Palestinian TV shows children's programming glorifying martyrs and promoting the destruction of Israel. They are taking historical events from hundreds of years ago and reframing them for the children today.

Today the US is still concerned with conflicts in our streets resulting from many African Americans feeling that they are continued to be oppressed as slaves. There have been no real slaves for over 140 years but as long as people on both sides cling to a slave culture and a cutlure of oppressing slaves there will be conflict. A lot of Mexico's problems come from a clear separation between those of Indian origin and those of Spanish origin, with the Spanish heritage folks owning most of the property and wealth with the Indian heritage people existing in poverty and subsistance farming. All of Central America has had these problems for the last 500 years or so and the current "solution" is to export the underclass to the US.

So as much as you might like to ignore history and say that it has no bearing on your life, it does. And it will continue to do so. If you do not educate yourself as to how history impacts you in your daily life you are going to be simply reliving the same conflicts and the results of these conflicts without solving anything.

Re:Censorship, much? (4, Insightful)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360779)

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? (-1, Flamebait)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360937)

Nope, wrong! AQ started because the US left some troops in Saudi Arabia to garrison the place after liberating Kuwait. This was an affront in the eyes of the True Believers, as Saudi Arabia is the home of Mecca. They got outraged, and we all know what happens when Islamists get angry. Nice try on the leftist angle, though - shows you're thinking about your own worldview and not the views of other cultures.

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

evorster (2664141) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359733)

Why did the Islamist extreme folks start wanting us dead? Who kicked that off, and what the hell is it all about?

You meddle. Having the benefit of living very far away from both the US and the far east, I can see this. They hate you for coming from your fat rich economy and telling them what to do, and forcing them to sell their oil cheaply, btw.

Think of it like this: Would you be happy if Europeans started telling you to lower your living standards and work for minimum wage because they need things cheaper over there?

Re:Censorship, much? (3, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359857)

They hate you for coming from your fat rich economy and telling them what to do, and forcing them to sell their oil cheaply, btw.

Bull-fucking-shit. You know who largely sets oil prices worldwide? OPEC [wikipedia.org] (in a manner that would be completely illegal in most of the Western world for price collusion, BTW). Do you know why the US meddles so often? Because OPEC and the Arab world in general hold so tight a fist on oil production, and have shown their willingness to strangle the rest of the world if they don't get their way. The US didn't invade Iraq the first time because it wanted to: no, it did so because Saudi Arabia asked the US to. Gave us a pretty big check to help out, too. The whole region is massively fucked up, has been for literally millennia. The US hasn't always helped, but they also haven't been the ones to start it either.

Re:Censorship, much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40359947)

And the whole Arab world LOVES Saudi Arabia...

The Saudi regime is a corrupt organisation that is out to be the puppet masters of the region

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360681)

Few, if any governments in the Arab world govern by the consent of the governed. What the Saudi Arabian royalty wants is not reflective of what the bulk of the Saudi population want. Just like the policies of Mubarak were not reflective of what the people of Egypt want.

I'm sure their hatred has nothing to do with our military intervention, installation and support for puppet dictatorships, blind support for a military aggressor state in the middle of their region, crippling economic sanctions aimed at coercion, etc. etc.

Re:Censorship, much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40360531)

Think of it like this: Would you be happy if Europeans started telling you to lower your living standards and work for minimum wage because they need things cheaper over there?

Fuck no! Who are we, China?

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359741)

One single but simple to check reason for some Muslim fanatics to hate the US is the occupation of their second most holy place by Israel and the support Israel gets from the US.

Any person with access to a (public) library, newspapers, news magazines or the internet can find many more reasons.

A discussion about the validity of these claims is often difficult but in any case lost on those guys.

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359817)

>>>what do they hate us for?

Because we keep killing Arabs. We've been killing Arabs ever since we first attacked Iran in the 1950s and overthrew their democratic government (replacing it with a dictatorial government). More recently we starved a million Iraqi children by blocking food shipments into their country (90s) and directly killed or maimed another 2 million during Bush's Iraq War. Then we bombed Yemen and bombed Libya, killing about 50,000, and permanently disabling another 200,000 with blown-off limbs, after which we set-up a dictatorial government run by the military & religious dictators.

No I don't know why they would hate us?
(That was sarcasm.)

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

bkaul01 (619795) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360405)

Iranians are Persian, not Arab. And we've killed plenty of Europeans and East Asians in various conflicts without it leading to jihadism. It's not an issue of ethnicity, but one of an extremist religious cult amongst various Muslim peoples that teaches that terrorism is a desirable means of spreading Sharia Law throughout the world. That's not to say our meddling really endears us to the people in Arab states, but it's not sufficient to explain the level of hatred that exists.

Re:Censorship, much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40361025)

Iraqis killing US soldiers on Iraqi soil? Sounds like a legitimate Iraqi resistance movement to me!

Re:Censorship, much? (4, Insightful)

Artraze (600366) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360111)

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? (2)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360441)

Why the US?

Because the US is the biggest meddler in the region, plain and simple.

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360383)

You should watch the outstanding documentary "Taliban: Behind the Masks" It won't give you a full answer to your question, but perhaps a partial one. Ignorance plays a crucial role.

Nowadays, with all the media and the Net, people often forget how different life can be in remote places. Then again, from what I remember of the documentary, the taliban themselves do not seem to be so different from us even if they have a wholly different frame of mind.

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

JazzLad (935151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360419)

People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.

(Young) River Tam, Serenity [imdb.com]

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360551)

"....what do they hate us for?"

This is why it's important to have free and open communication. We can listen to Bush say "they hate us for our freedom", when we should be getting the word from their point of view.

Various Al Queda figures have said repeatedly that their main grievances are U.S. military occupation of their holy land and unconditional U.S. support for Israel.

With regard to Iran, the U.S. CIA conducted a coup to overthrow Mohamad Mossadegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, and consolidated power under The Shah, a brutal dictator who ruled until the Iranian revolution in 1979.

If you want to know why the Muslim world (and the rest of the world) hates the U.S. I recommend the book "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson. It was published in Spring 2001 before 9-11 happened.

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360849)

So, if they don't hate us for our freedoms (I'm with you on this point - that's the whitewashed, political reason), what do they hate us for? Is it our economic policies? Our military strategies?

The biggest reason they hate us right now, according to surveys and writings from people in the region, is that US drones are rountinely blowing up civilians with no involvement in terrorism. In addition, if you show up at the funeral of a person killed in a drone strike, you're now on the suspect list. I mean, imagine you're a typical Yemeni man who goes to work, does some shopping, heads home to your family, and finds that instead of a home and your wife and kids, you have a pile of rubble and a bunch of bodies (and the US reporters will say that a bunch of "militants" were killed). I think it's fair to say that you and everyone who cares about you would probably have nothing but complete hatred of the group of people who did that to you.

Other things that are definitely not helping are complete inaction on Syria slaughtering its own people, doing nothing to stop Israeli settlement building (which appears to have the goal of complete takeover of the West Bank), having allied governments attack protesters with equipment made in the USA, killing hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, quite probably working with Israel to blow up Iranian physicists (and anyone who happens to be standing near them), and supporting oppressive and corrupt dictatorships throughout the region.

Re:Censorship, much? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40359633)

You want to talk about terrorism? I terrorized my date's vagina wit' muh dikk last weekend!

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Censorship, much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40359949)

Yup, she told me she was terrified she wouldn't be satisfied, and apparently she was right.

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359643)

Understanding your government's enemies, even if you disagree with them, is dangerous to your government. If you do not believe what your government tells you, you might not support them anymore. The videos are dangerous to some, but that is okay.

Re:Censorship, much? (2)

evorster (2664141) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359665)

I pretty much agree with you. Censorship in all forms are bad.

Hate Speech? - Let the world see what a douchebag looks like for real.

CP? - The damage is already done.. find the bastard who did it, and do bad things to them, but taking the sick depraved things off the net does not do anything to stop it happening in the first place.


I fully believe that people _need_ to see the horrors of what other people are doing, so that they have a sense of perspective.

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359989)

Now I understand if it is regarding material on how to construct IEDs or similar things.

This, also, is protected speech under the first amendment. Even some questionable material should remain available. Picking and choosing what is acceptable and what is not is the first step on a slippery slope to tyranny and dictatorship.

Now if someone is doing something illegal on video, threatening illegal action, or inciting others to illegal action, then that should be removed. Saying "Go build one of these and throw it at a government building" should not be allowed. Simply showing HOW to build one should be perfectly acceptable.

For example, a tripwire-activated firecracker to scare your friend can be upscaled to a stick of dynamite for nefarious purposes. That does not mean nobody should be able to see the initial prank video.

The rest I completely agree with. Nobody is going to 'join the terrorist cause' because they saw someone shouting nonsense about the 'evil western powers'. The personal ideals videos are harmless except to my ears and opinion of the Human race.

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360577)

>>>Now if someone is doing something illegal on video, threatening illegal action, or inciting others to illegal action, then that should be removed. Saying "Go build one of these and throw it at a government building" should not be allowed.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already said that such speech is protected by the first amendment. They said the only time it would be outlawed, is if the person was actually holding a gun or weapon and saying, "I'm going to kill you." The case where they made this decision involved a black protestor in Chicago saying he was going to kill President Johnson. The U.S. Supreme Court found him not guilty and released him from jail.

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

cellocgw (617879) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360603)

Nobody is going to 'join the terrorist cause' because they saw someone shouting nonsense about the 'evil western powers'. The personal ideals videos are harmless except to my ears and opinion of the Human race.
The successful conversion of millions of US citizens to dittoheadism suggests otherwise.

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359635)

The idea behind suppressing undesirable or illegal videos is the same idea behind advertising. Companies spend money on advertising because advertising works. Deleting or otherwise suppressing what amounts to "terrorist advertising" is helpful to suppressing terrorism itself (or at least active recruitment/incitement to terrorism).

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359675)

Only 640 removals is more like censorship, little. A drop in the sea basically.

Re:Censorship, much? (2)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359711)

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

Google is a business, they don't have to follow freedom of speech in youtube.

If the Terrorist really want to their videos being hosted, they will have to host it themselves, Youtube/Google isn't required by any laws to show them.

Youtube isn't a public forum to speak your mind, it's a business that can exclude anything they want.

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

dark12222000 (1076451) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360655)

Right, and I don't see anyone screaming "You're violating my first amendment rights!"

What we are asking is that since Google typically does try to promote as much freedom as possible within the confines of their rules (as it makes them look good and certainly helps their popularity and thus profit), this does seem odd unless the videos contained hate speech or something else which have already been against their TOS - at which point, there shouldn't be a need for a request.

It may be that Google is complying purely for political reasons, and, if that's the case, then we should be talking to our government(s) about why they are trying to take down these videos, since that IS a constitutional issue (at least in America, your mileage may vary) - even if it's not a "command" but a request, all US governmental entities (federal or state or whatever) ARE required to uphold the constitution in good faith.

Re:Censorship, much? (1)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360843)

I understand your point, but the point of this story is that the removals are being done at the request of government authorities. This is not Google making independent decisions about what to remove.

Re:Censorship, much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40359957)

Probably because every study on terrorism which addresses the issue of recruitment confirms that sources such as YouTube are effective tools for recruitment.

I know that doesn't agree with your view of the world, but sometimes worldly views differ from what's really going on.

That'll solve the problem! (-1, Flamebait)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359393)

640 removals should be enough for anybody!

Re:That'll solve the problem! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40359569)

They left the videos supporting the lowering of taxes on the super wealthy up though.

free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40359411)

Free speech is great... as long as you're someone we like saying things we like.

Re:free speech (5, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359649)

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:free speech (1)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360979)

This is NOT a matter of Google self censorship.
It is government authorities coming to Google with "polite requests" and court orders about certain content that the authorities and government's don't like.
It's likely that they're making profit-based decisions, but those decisions are also being made under government coercion.
Look at what happened to WikiLeaks. They did something the government didn't like, and all of a sudden government strong-arms PayPal, Amazon and others to dissociate themselves. Even though WikiLeaks had committed no crime other than embarrassing the government.
Authorities shouldn't have such arbitrary powers.

Terrorism (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40359473)

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 (1)

equex (747231) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359519)

yup that is the case

Re:Terrorism (2)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359549)

Note that Google didn't claim that the videos were terrorist, but rather that they "promoted terrorism". Most people would consider a video that supported the militant operations of al-Qaeda to have "promoted terrorism".

On the other hand, a video that urged extending legal protections to al-Qaeda detainees, such as those in Gitmo, might be widely disagreed with in some circles, but would not be censored by Google for this reason, because it's not promoting terrorism proper. Make sense?

tl;dr -- It's fun to rant, but sometimes this stuff actually makes decent sense when you spend more than 30 seconds thinking about it.

Re:Terrorism (1)

ToadProphet (1148333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359619)

I believe you're stating your opinion on what 'promoting terrorism' means, not the governments in question or Google's. Would a factual documentary that showed some element of the Taliban, for example, in a positive light be considered 'promoting terrorism?'

In an age where much political dissent is treated as 'promoting terrorism' there is a pretty obvious slippery slope.

Re:Terrorism (1)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359753)

I agree re: the slippery slope. The Taliban is an interesting case. It's true that they have been allied with al-Qaeda at various times; but to the extent that we find factions of the Taliban to be fighting a defensive war for parts of Afghanistan, it isn't completely accurate to classify them as terrorists. At some point it seems hopeful that we could determine that al-Qaeda has been sufficiently exterminated along with many of their Taliban allies, that Afghanistan is engaged in what amounts to a civil war, and try to back out of that whole mess. There will be more international terrorists to kill, but it's not reasonable to suppose that everybody wearing a turban and holding a rifle in Afghanistan is one of them (much less a walkie-talkie -- I recall that the rules of engagement allow our snipers to kill walkie-talkie holders on sight in many areas, no guns required).

Re:Terrorism (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360053)

I think a much better use of their time would be to remove videos that are blatantly detrimental to common knowledge, like factual statements about the existence of Nabiru, or pseudoscience claiming the end of the world, or 'cure AIDS by praying', various conspiracy theories, etc. These things give people false hope which they believe as fact because it is presented in a semi-professional manner. That is the REAL danger on YouTube.

Re:Terrorism (2, Insightful)

Loughla (2531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359659)

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:Terrorism (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360065)

Terrorist: Blows up buildings and transportation.

Troll: Blows up chat rooms and forums (with nonsense)

Re:Terrorism (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360949)

Terrorist: Blows up buildings and transportation.

Well, by that definition the US military is by far the biggest terrorist organization on the planet. Of course, the US military's official definition of "terrorist" is "Any male person between the ages of about 14 and 50 that we just killed in a drone strike."

Lesser of two evils (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359507)

Better to take them down than receive a subpoena for the information of everyone who viewed them, whatever their reason for viewing them may be.

Re:Lesser of two evils (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40359687)

Google: Yeah, so, as it turns out, we had to take down a bunch of terrorism-related videos from YouTube over the past year.
Public: ZOMG WHAT?!??!? How COULD you? That's censorship! TAHTS EVUL OHNOES
Google: Hey, don't look at us. We have to do our work in this country, and we've got to adhere to court orders and stuff.
Public: RRRRRRRRRHATE HATE HAET
Google: Look, we're sorry. But hey, on the bright side, thanks to these transparency requirements forced upon us by various governments, we'll keep you informed of what we had to remove, what departments demanded this, and thanks to our search engine, who's in charge of those departm-
Government: Um... a-heh-heh... yeeeeeah, you know that "transparency" thing? Yeah, um, turns out that won't be needed anymore, yeah pleasebequiet pleasebequiet pleasebequiet pleasebequiet...

Better still... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359693)

...to not keep information on people who view them.

32% (3, Funny)

hackula (2596247) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359527)

The 32% they absolutely refused to take down were videos of cute little kittens.

Re:32% (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360079)

Guess they didn't know that the cute kittens were secretly a distraction technique for the terrorist forces. Well played, sirs. Well played.

Let the terrorists speak (3, Interesting)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359539)

Free speech concerns aside, I'm much more afraid of terrorists promoting their agenda in the dark than those who shout it from the rooftops. It's a lot easier to keep track of people stupid enough to put themselves out in the public sphere (and those who associate with them).

Re:Let the terrorists speak (3, Insightful)

funwithBSD (245349) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359673)

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.

Re:Let the terrorists speak (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359851)

That's very true, but here we have a government ordering a private entity to take content down, unless i'm misreading the summary.

Re:Let the terrorists speak (1)

funwithBSD (245349) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360235)

Summary and original article imply APCO is a government agency.

It is not.

Re:Let the terrorists speak (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360349)

Aha. Maybe Google wasn't aware of this either. The name of the association sounds mighty governmental.

Re:Let the terrorists speak (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360525)

No free speech issues here at all.

Of course there are free speech issues involved. It's just that this kind of censorship is perfectly legal.

Re:Let the terrorists speak (1)

guises (2423402) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360821)

Yes. Just because the first amendment doesn't apply doesn't mean that this doesn't impact speech, or isn't important.

Insistence on asserting absolute property rights over a forum that Google has made every effort to sell as a public one is also very narrow-minded. If a private entity can censor on a whim, then the only way to have free speech would be to prevent private ownership of public communication mediums.

Re:Let the terrorists speak (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360941)

In a world with a strong public commons, private restrictions on speech don't affect free speech much. But in a world where the public commons has been impoverished, where almost everything is owned and controlled by (and to benefit) private interests, then freedom of speech only belongs to those who own the means of communication. That's not what we should expect from a democracy.

We once made it illegal to censor or tamper with communications on the state of the art communication network of the day... the US Postal Service. All the arguments in favor of a free and secure postal service apply to communication channels of all sorts.

If there were a public internet where free speech was protected, then yes I could see how Google's actions weren't contrary to free speech. But since we only have one internet, it should be operated for the public good, and the same restrictions should apply to private companies as would apply to the government.

Unfortunately, our Constitution is inadequate to provide this kind of protection, but that doesn't mean this restriction on free speech is "OK".

Re:Let the terrorists speak (1)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359777)

We got agencies and people who are trained to deal with those kinds of people. This is no fear for me. I'm more afraid of a government who tells their people their plans and you know it's completely wrong and doesn't make sense (especially about the part on how much taxes we give) and lets face it, the people can't do really much about this. Sure it's not terrorism but in an odd way it can be considered one if you think about it.

I suspect they may be "terrorists" not terrorists (3, Interesting)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359543)

I bet if you could see the list, many of these "terrorists" would turn out to be people just criticizing their governments and revealing government secrets.

Re:I suspect they may be "terrorists" not terroris (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40359725)

Does anyone recall what the first YouTube video was called?

Re:I suspect they may be "terrorists" not terroris (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40359859)

The first YouTube video was entitled Me at the zoo, and shows co-founder Jawed Karim at the San Diego Zoo.[11] The video was uploaded on April 23, 2005, and can still be viewed on the site.[12]

From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Re:I suspect they may be "terrorists" not terroris (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360819)

The term "terrorist" is defined by the eye of the beholder. Even though it means something like "a person whose goal is to increase fear among a certain population". They'll use it instead of the real word they are looking for: treasonous. Because treason could be a Good Thing and terrorism can't.

A better idea (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359545)

Ban all infomercials from YouTube and classify videos promoting terrorism as infomercials.

i miss it... (1)

Titan1080 (1328519) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359567)

I was lying in bed last night, reading a book that is set in 1998, and it suddenly occurred to me that I REALLY miss the pre-9/11 world. So absolutely sick of hearing about all this supposed terrorism.

here come the free speech fundamentalists (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359587)

who don't understand that everything has its limits

when you are a fundamentalist, in any ideology, you damage the world with your oversimplifications

"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Churchill

that applies to religion, obviously

that applies to free markets (tea party morons and assorted ayn rand acolytes)

that applies to free speech

fundamentalism, oversimplification, idealism, of ANY ideology, represents the downfall of the world

a wise life is all about a balance, a moderation, an appreciation for the complex realities of the world we live in

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40359661)

No one today lives in a free market economy. Get over it. Don't go blaming the free marketers for today's troubles. And better yet, stop doing business with those that you feel abuse their possition of power. Good luck at trying to stop doing business with the over zealous government.

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359743)

the free marketers are usually propagandized fools in the service of the oligarchy. a handful of large corporations that collude with each other and infect the government does not represent any ideal of the free market, but they are the only ones who benefit from free market fundamentalist rhetoric and political action

meanwhile, the only institution actually intended to protect the little guy, the government, is vilified by the clueless little guys. they want to remove their only protection, their government, because their government is ineffective, and it is ineffective because it has been infected by the corruption by large corporations

through their thoughts and actions, free market fundamentalists expose themselves to even more pain and suffering at the hands of large corporations by desiring the dismantling of their government. the oligarchy of large corporations do not represent the free market, and genuine free markets are hurt as the government's regulations, the only thing that actually keeps free markets truly free, are dismantled. a truly regulation free market NATURALLY devolves into domination by its largest players. only a government and its regulations keeps a market truly free, that is, balanced in power between the little guy and the big guy

so i'm sorry, i do blame the free market fundamentalists for our problems. we suffer for their economic illiteracy in service of a mythology about how free markets function that never existed and never will

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40359787)

A pretty weak form of argument. I would expect that, with the subject you chose, you would either prove problems with free speech rights or show how supporting free speech is fundamentalism. Instead you just assert that free speech is fundamentalism and outline why fundamentalism is a bad thing. Are all widely held ideas fundamentalist?

You argue by associating a negatively viewed group with the subject you're dismissing instead of trying to counter the main idea.

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359905)

no. free speech is important, i support it

the problem is free speech fundamentalism, which is an entirely different enchilada

you are confusing two entirely different concepts

free speech fundamentalism is the idea that speech needs no limits, and ANY limits are therefore as bad and the same as THE WORST KIND of limits

we're talking about people, for example, who equate china squashing all political expression, with the west squashing kiddie porn. they obviously are not the same. but to a free speech fundamentalism, it's the same, it's just all censorship, regardless of the subject matter

nonsense

free speech has it's limits: i can't shout fire in a crowded theatre, i can't threaten to kill someone, i can't incite people to kill someone (these terrorist videos), i can't secretly record you having sex with your wife then put it on a billboard next to the highway: free speech has its limits in a free society. and SOME forms of speech are not free, and should not be allowed: those that cause real harm to individuals. you can say that, and you can still say you support free speech passionately. you just have to have to be wise enough to know that real life is more complicated than ham fisted oversimplifications

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40360749)

I saw no posts on this topic that advocated any of the "fundamentalist" views of free speech that you rant against.

Your posts were pure straw man, and your claim that criticism against this case of censorship was an "entirely different concept" from the kind of support for free speech that you find acceptable was almost Orwellian.

Most of the comments against YouTube's cooperation with the government were, "no they shouldn't have done that", and not, "OH NOES, teh gubmit is bad as CHINA!"

You devalue the worth of your own speech with your extreme and off-target criticism.

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#40359803)

However sceptical I am re. censorship your posting is insightful to many but the fundamentalists.

Re:here come the free speech fundamentalists (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40361059)

Yes, idealism should be tempered by practicality. Tell me, as a practical matter, how is censorship better than counter propaganda?

Do you think that these people are just going to go away if you censor them? Do you think censorship won't help them paint themselves as persecuted, and serve as a marketing tool for them?

If you think Islamist propaganda is an effective recruitment tool, wouldn't anti-islamist propganda be just as effective? How are you going to counter their arguments if their indoctrination isn't taking place in public?

You can call me a fundamentalist if you like, but you haven't shown any reason to think that censorship is going to be effective. It certainly sets a nice precedent for suppressing dissenting opinions on Youtube though.

Yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40359663)

All the real meaty videos are likely unlisted and only spread around darknets.

ACPO (1)

JamieKitson (757690) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360045)

ACPO is a very strange organisation, it's an unaccountable PLC, refusing FOI requests, and yet it is funded in part by tax payer's money and has a lot of power within the police and government.

mokd Down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40360277)

seesion and join In channel, you might

Obama is a terrorist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40360417)

Any videos featuring Ba'raq Saddam Hussein Osama Obama should be removed from the Internet, because he is a Kenyan-born Islamic Terrorist and should be treated as one.

The Cost of Silence (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360539)

"It’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard; it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen, and to hear. And every time you silence someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something." -- Christopher Hitchens

Google is a government - trust it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40360657)

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin

First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me. – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)

Re:Google is a government - trust it (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#40360789)

It seems particularly ironic that you are using a phrase condemning people who refused to stand up against genocide to condemn people who stand up against terrorism.

Not again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40360709)

"Download torrent of the videos from HERE"-link is missing!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>