YouTube
Hinders Publication of Exposé
of UN Censorship by
Google Algorithm, UNappealable
By Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS,
February 27 – With the large
social media platforms like
Google and Facebook vowing to
use algorithms to prevent
terrorist recruitment and for
other purposes, the crudeness
of results, intended or not,
has come to the fore. Like
many
independent
media, Inner
City Press
publishes its
coverage
and associated
commentary
not only on
its website
but on a
number of
third party
platforms like
YouTube,
Twitter,
Facebook,
Scribd
and SoundCloud.
YouTube is
owned by
Google, and
like its
parent allows
publishes to
monetize their
material with
advertisements.
But do YouTube
and Google
behind it
engage in
censorship?
This week, as
Inner City
Press ramps up
its fight
against the
eviction of
its shared
office in
the United
Nations while
asking
questions
about UN
corruption
and
incompetence,
including in
Yemen and
Syria, it has
received a
series of
e-mails from
YouTube that
its videos on
these topics
"cannot be
monetized"
with
advertisements.
Now on
February 27,
monetization
not only of
Q&As involving
Sri Lanka and
Ukraine and
Yemen has been
blocked - now,
even a dramatic
reading of an
exposé of UN censorship. They
wrote: "
We
didn't approve
your video(s)
for
monetization
because the
content in
your video(s)
or video
details may
not be advertiser-friendly.
This is
no longer a
mis-application
of a terrorism
screen. This is
a pattern at
Google, see
here.
The emails
said
“Controversial
or sensitive
subjects and
events,
including
subjects
related to
war, political
conflicts,
natural
disasters and
tragedies,
even if
graphic
imagery is not
shown... We
depend on our
user community
to flag
inappropriate
videos to us
for our
review.”
Even after
appeal, videos
whose titles
including the
word "Nusra"
for example
are deemed
ineligible for
monetization.
But
they are video
of questions
and answers
(sometimes) at
the UN, of
protests in
the streets of
New York, etc.
Inner City
Press has
written,
to
Monetization
then to Press
[at]
YouTube.com:
“The videos
you are saying
are “not
advertiser-friendly”
are videos of
media
questions and
answers with
United Nations
spokespeople
and diplomats.
They are news.
The message
sent yesterday
and today said
“you can
request an
additional
review below”
- this is a
request for
review. Look
at the videos:
they are
Q&As in
the UN Press
Briefing Room.
This is also a
request to be
informed if it
was any
complaint to
YouTube /
Google which
triggered this
denial of
monetization,
and if so if
it came from
the UN or
any[one else.]
I note that
Reuters, got
one of its
anti-Press
emails to the
UN banned from
Google Search
with a
frivolous DMCA
filing: https://www.chillingeffects.org/notices/1457339#
now [HRW] https://lumendatabase.org/notices/1457339#
Please confirm
receipt and
review the
above and
restore
monetization,
answering the
question.
Google and
YouTube should
not be
involved in
any form of
censorship,
including the
denial of
monetization
of news
footage."
Now on
February 26,
YouTube has
sent this:
"Hi
Inner City
Press, After
reviewing your
video, we’ve
confirmed that
the content in
your video or
video details
aren’t
advertiser-friendly.
As a result,
your video
can’t be
monetized.
"In
Golan After UN
Peacekeepers
Hand Over Guns
to Nusra, UN
Won't Say If
Ladsous
Ordered It"
YouTube
reserves the
right to make
the final
decision about
video
monetization."
So, like at
the UN on
unilateral
decisions to
target, evict
and restrict
particular
media, and
like some
decisions by Twitter to which we will
next turn,
there is no
appeal. (UN
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric, who
has bragged
about the UN's
"use" of
YouTube, ran
out when Inner
City Press
asked about
this, here.)
This is
UNacceptable.
We'll have
more on this.
***
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
Past
(and future?) UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA
For now: Box 20047,
Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other,
earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in
the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright
2006-2017 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
for
|