It starts with a very bold claim, right in the subtitle:
"Google has given officials special access to its video site"
I would be very interested in hearing more about this "special access." Is there some kind of secret pre-Youtube where you can look at videos before they're available to everyone? Perhaps a clandestine vault where only the best clips of baby animals and people falling down are kept? That would certainly qualify as "special access," but if such a thing exists, the article is silent about it.
"...allowing them to have content instantly reviewed if they think that it threatens national security."
This is the only point in the article where I felt even slightly "informed", and even then, Youtube already has at least one framework by which videos can be submitted for review and possible removal. It would be nice if the article went into exactly what the review and removal process might entail if the request came from a security concern instead of a copyright one. The article lets us down on this front as well.
"The YouTube permissions that Google has given the Home Office in recent weeks include the power to flag swaths of content “at scale” instead of only picking out individual videos."
I don't know what this means. I can't think of a functional difference between "selecting a video and then another video" and "selecting a group of videos."
"UK prosecutors already have the power to request removal of illegal content."
So do prosecutors everywhere. So do I. So does my dog. I don't think there's anywhere in the world where you can't request that Google remove illegal content. Heck, I can request that Google remove perfectly legal content. I can request that Google do my homework for me, or give me a lift to the store. Nobody gave me (or UK prosecutors) the "power" to do this, except I guess Google itself, by virtue of existing.
"The UK’s security and immigration minister, James Brokenshire, said that the British government has to do more to deal with some 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”."
This quote is completely out of context. Is Brokenshire even talking about Youtube videos?
"He said that among the issues being considered by the government was a “code of conduct” for internet service providers and internet companies."
Again, please, give us some details about what this "code of conduct" might entail. It sounds important. It sounds like a prime opportunity to inform readers about a real, topical issue. It sounds like a very poor time to end the article, which is exactly what happens.
1 comment
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 16.0 ms ] threadIt starts with a very bold claim, right in the subtitle:
"Google has given officials special access to its video site"
I would be very interested in hearing more about this "special access." Is there some kind of secret pre-Youtube where you can look at videos before they're available to everyone? Perhaps a clandestine vault where only the best clips of baby animals and people falling down are kept? That would certainly qualify as "special access," but if such a thing exists, the article is silent about it.
"...allowing them to have content instantly reviewed if they think that it threatens national security."
This is the only point in the article where I felt even slightly "informed", and even then, Youtube already has at least one framework by which videos can be submitted for review and possible removal. It would be nice if the article went into exactly what the review and removal process might entail if the request came from a security concern instead of a copyright one. The article lets us down on this front as well.
"The YouTube permissions that Google has given the Home Office in recent weeks include the power to flag swaths of content “at scale” instead of only picking out individual videos."
I don't know what this means. I can't think of a functional difference between "selecting a video and then another video" and "selecting a group of videos."
"UK prosecutors already have the power to request removal of illegal content."
So do prosecutors everywhere. So do I. So does my dog. I don't think there's anywhere in the world where you can't request that Google remove illegal content. Heck, I can request that Google remove perfectly legal content. I can request that Google do my homework for me, or give me a lift to the store. Nobody gave me (or UK prosecutors) the "power" to do this, except I guess Google itself, by virtue of existing.
"The UK’s security and immigration minister, James Brokenshire, said that the British government has to do more to deal with some 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”."
This quote is completely out of context. Is Brokenshire even talking about Youtube videos?
"He said that among the issues being considered by the government was a “code of conduct” for internet service providers and internet companies."
Again, please, give us some details about what this "code of conduct" might entail. It sounds important. It sounds like a prime opportunity to inform readers about a real, topical issue. It sounds like a very poor time to end the article, which is exactly what happens.