PLANK SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Late last week, Google yanked “The Innocence of Muslims,” from YouTube in Egypt, Libya and some other Muslim nations. By that point, an ambassador and three other Americans were already dead in Libya, while riots raged across the Middle East. Still, the company’s actions left behind an uncomfortable question: Should Google pull videos from YouTube just because they make people angry and violent?
Google was, in my view, right to suspend the video, given the clear and present danger of more violence. But Google’s content-removal process left much to be desired. It has become clear that Google needs a better system for dealing with hard speech questions.
YouTube, to be clear, isn’t an open forum (even if it sometimes seems that way). For one thing, Google uses an ingenious sex-detecting algorithm to preemptively yank porn. It also employs a complicated system to help copyright owners (mainly Hollywood) locate their works. Finally, the firm bans a long list of other content, including: “animal abuse, drug abuse, under-age drinking and smoking, bomb-making, graphic or gratuitous violence, gross-out videos, hate speech, predatory behavior, stalking, threats, harassment, intimidation, invading privacy, revealing other people’s personal information, inciting others to commit violent acts, and spam.”
Some of these categories, like drug abuse, are relatively easy to define. But others are harder, like “hate speech,” “gross out” and “inciting others.” Right now, Google decides everything itself, forcing the firm to be an arbitrary censor, which it hates, or in the awkward position of reacting to requests from the White House and other governments. A special team within Google, after a video is flagged, decides whether its content guidelines have been violated, but Google has also shown it will reach beyond its guidelines to yank content on a case-by-case basis. The latter process is decidedly ad-hoc.
A better course would be to try to create a process that relies on a community, either of regional experts or the serious users of YouTube. Community members would (as they do now) flag dangerous or illegal videos for deletion. Google would decide the easy cases itself, and turn the hard cases over to the community, which would aim for a rough consensus. Such a system would be an early-warning signal that might have prevented riots in the first place.
How might a regional, community-based system work? Like now, any user could nominate a video for deletion, and if it fell clearly within the categories above, it would be speedily deleted. But for the hard questions, Google could demand that the nominator argue its case to either a global (for all of YouTube) or regional (for country specific sites) community forum. YouTube users of good standing—those that actually upload videos on a consistent basis—would be allowed to comment, until some kind of rough consensus is reached. Without consensus, the video stays. If this system worked, in the case of “Innocence of Muslims,” someone could have made the case much earlier that the “movie” should be taken down in Muslim countries as "hate speech." And that just might possibly have just prevented some of what’s happening right now.
There are both theoretical and practical arguments against the system I am suggesting. For one thing, the community process might be more restrictive than some people would like. Alternatively, they might be too loose, or unrepresentative of the broader non-YouTube-using community. And perhaps most troubling, the system might just not “work” as a practical matter—it might not attract enough responsible people, particularly for regional sites, willing to opine on whether a video should be yanked or not.
The practical questions can be addressed by looking at a leading model for community content-yanking, which is Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, any user can propose the deletion of a page that does not fit Wikipedia’s content guidelines. The nomination is debated (on Wikipedia) until a rough consensus is reached, which it usually is. While that system may not work perfectly, it has kept Wikipedia from becoming Spampedia, a forum for ideological projects, or simply a tool for marketing companies who want to flog unknown products.
To be sure, attracting responsible community input isn’t easy, and it isn’t clear that YouTube uploaders are as involved as Wikipedia editors—but perhaps it’s worth a trial. If it doesn’t work, an alternative to a user-system would be regionalized panels of good citizens, acting as judges, who would be willing to opine on the hard questions, the way that panels of prominent authors decide what words should be in the American Heritage Dictionary.
As for the appropriateness of the YouTube community, the question who we’re comparing it to. The current system depends on a small, anonymous team of people in Mountain View who follow guidelines, who can be overridden from unspecified others within Google for any other reason. That system works for the easy questions, but is has become clear that Google needs something better.
Having an actual process as opposed to a single point of decision, would serve the interests of Google and the world. It might ideally create a YouTube that is more responsive to the different sensitivities of different parts the world, which would be nice. It might get messy at times, but we need to understand that, at some level, Google is trying to create a free speech jurisprudence, a project that the Supreme Court spent much of the 20th century working on. And that’s not easy, even for Google.
16 comments
It had to be Wu: China has such a great profound history of respect for freedom of speech. So glad a Chinese-American wants to lecture us on free speech, what's responsible, normative, allowed. But wee Mr Wu: allowed by who? Spend a few years learning about the 1st amendment. It's not a restriction on what Americans can say, it's a limit on what the FedGov can do to limit free speech. Answer: nothing! And speech, while we hope it is civilzed (that's Western civilization, Wu) and polite, doesn't have to be. The 1st Amendment allows people to be rude, aggressive, offensive to tender sensibilities. Americans can write (speak) the truth as they see it. They don't even have to be politically correct. Having said that, I bet there are repulsive dribblers on youtube. Don't know; don't watch it. Doesn't matter. Free speech is sacred American territory. It's not known in Asia.
- raygun
September 18, 2012 at 2:12pm
After I read Tim Wu's assault on the 1st Amendment this morning, I was speechless, because I have been near speechless all week watching the President of the United States of America and his SecState and Dempsey and Amb Rice making any attempt to coerce Google-owned Youtube into situational censorship. So, thank you malahat and raygun for your comments of protest here. Two relevant reads today, from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Bret Stephens. TNR.com needs an antidote for tnr.com's heresy. "...America needs to empower those individuals and groups who are already disenchanted with political Islam by helping find and develop an alternative. At the heart of that alternative are the ideals of the rule of law and freedom of thought, worship, and expression. For these values there can and should be no apologies, no groveling, no hesitation. ..." http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/16/ayaan-hirsi-ali-on-the-islamists-final-stand.html and, then I read Bret Stephens in today's WSJ: "Muslims, Mormons and Liberals Why is it OK to mock one religion but not another?" "...That the most "progressive" administration in recent U.S. history will make no principled defense of free speech to a Muslim world that could stand hearing such a defense. After the debut of "The Book of Mormon" musical, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints responded with this statement: "The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people's lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ." That was it. The People's Front for the Liberation of Provo will not be gunning for a theater near you. Is it asking too much of religious and political leaders in Muslim communities to adopt a similar attitude? It needn't be. A principled defense of free speech could start by quoting the Quran: "And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah [recited], they are denied [by them] and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation." In this light, the true test of religious conviction is indifference, not susceptibility, to mockery. The defense could add that a great religion surely cannot be goaded into frenetic mob violence on the slimmest provocation. Yet to watch the images coming out of Benghazi, Cairo, Tunis and Sana'a is to witness some significant portion of a civilization being transformed into Travis Bickle, the character Robert De Niro made unforgettable in Taxi Driver. "You talkin' to me?" A defense would also point out that an Islamic world that insists on a measure of religious respect needs also to offer that respect in turn. When Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi—the closest thing Sunni Islam has to a pope—praises Hitler for exacting "divine punishment" on the Jews, that respect isn't exactly apparent. Nor has it been especially apparent in the waves of Islamist-instigated pogroms that have swept Egypt's Coptic community in recent years. Finally, it need be said that the whole purpose of free speech is to protect unpopular, heretical, vulgar and stupid views. So far, the Obama administration's approach to free speech is that it's fine so long as it's cheap and exacts no political price. This is free speech as pizza. President Obama came to office promising that he would start a new conversation with the Muslim world, one that lectured less and listened more. After nearly four years of listening, we can now hear more clearly where the U.S. stands in the estimation of that world: equally despised but considerably less feared. Just imagine what four more years of instinctive deference will do. On the bright side, dear liberals, you'll still be able to mock Mormons. They tend not to punch back, which is part of what makes so many of them so successful in life. " http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444450004578002010241044712.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t
- K2K
September 18, 2012 at 3:35pm
btw, I watched the Youtube last week. NOT hate speech, by ANY definition. The main message was about the intolerance of Islam towards those with other religions: "Dhimmi or Die" Now, can I go back to watching cats riding Romba Youtubes? or, will PETA claim "hate speech"... such a slippery slope :)
- K2K
September 18, 2012 at 3:39pm
Who is this Tim Wu? I am disappointed that Obama and Hillary Clinton have failed to vigorously defend the First Amendment from the Islamic brown shirts. Obama was supposedly an adjunct professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago.
- amidut
September 18, 2012 at 4:14pm
Didn't Obama and Clinton takes oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States?
- amidut
September 18, 2012 at 4:19pm
The idea that freedom of speech is absolute is ridiculous. Absolutism is a religious concept. I wouldn't censor any speech except that which leads directly and inevitably to violence, and "The Innocence of Muslims" did just that. You can bet the creator of that video gets sexually excited when he sees on TV the bloody anarchy he has unleashed--just like Julius Streicher did when he saw the results of his vile portrayal of Jews as cockroaches and rats in his newspaper. The next Wall Street crash will be catastrophic, much worse than the one in 2008. In its anarchic aftermath should we allow the Internet and the mainstream media to be flooded with Streicher-like rantings blaming the Jews? Should we multiply the anti-Semites in America by a factor of 10...20...50? I think not--not in the name of free speech or anything else. The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal didn't believe in absolute free speech either. They hanged Streicher.
- magboy47.
September 18, 2012 at 4:47pm
warnings/ratings for uploaded videos might be one way for serious "reviewers" to resolve many issues officially/institutionally for You Tube. as the author notes, however, getting responsible, astute reviewers to participate seems a daunting prospect, as would be fending off busy-bodies, the inept, etc., but not impossible.
- cdmcl3
September 18, 2012 at 5:30pm
We are not free. Why should you be?
- skahn
September 18, 2012 at 5:50pm
We are not free. Why should you be?
- skahn
September 18, 2012 at 5:50pm
As you can see, I was not free to single post.
- skahn
September 18, 2012 at 5:50pm
"Absolutism is a religious concept." Is it, magboy? Why is it that many secular regimes (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, The Baath party in Iraq and Syria, etc imposed totalitarian controls over society? " I wouldn't censor any speech except that which leads directly and inevitably to violence, and "The Innocence of Muslims" did just that." Yes, but how do you know which speech will lead to violence. I would have thought that Serrano's exhibit "piss Christ" would have led to violence but it didn't. When it comes to Muslims almost anything Westerners will say about that religion will be received with violence. Did you read about a BBC program questioning the historicity of Islam has led to death threats. We can't and we shouldn't live our lives afraid of how Muslims will react. if you do you have lost your freedom, Magboy.
- arnon1
September 18, 2012 at 6:22pm
when a 'religion' dictates death for blasphemy (remember the assassination of Egypt's Anwar Sadat?) and that definition of blasphemy includes anyone who decides they prefer a different 'religion', there is no way you can appease. The Organization of the Islamic Conference has been pushing for a global blasphemy law at the United Nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the_United_Nations Enough is enough.
- K2K
September 18, 2012 at 6:54pm
arnon, The people you mentioned--Lenin, Stalin, etc. were all operating in societies where religion had long been an oppressive force. In many cases they imposed state models that mimicked the religious models from their past. Stalin, who attended a seminary in his youth, almost lived Russian Orthodoxy while he was dictator. E.g., he copied some of their rituals, like the display and worship of icons, including those of himself. He also delivered speeches in the litany form that was common in Church sermons. You're right about the twisted touchiness of many Muslims. I saw a documentary on the ID Channel last night where a Muslim male from Turkey got in an argument with a young American woman here in the U.S. about the rights of women. He obviously thought he lost the argument, because he came back later and raped and murdered the woman. Fortunately, he's in prison for the rest of his life. Like Carole King said, you can't talk to a man with a shotgun in his hand. I'd prefer to save lives by not doing that. When I lived in the inner city in Detroit, I would sometimes see a young man coming down the street toward me with a look of complete rage on his face. I knew that I couldn't express my right to free speech with him, even to the point of looking him in the eye. If I didn't look down when I passed him, I stood a good chance of getting cut wide open. At that point I knew exactly how blacks in the KKK South felt when they passed a white male on the street. When lives are on the line, free speech is academic. Which brings me to the "slippery slope." It's a mirage, used for purposes of argument. The slope only tilts at a sharp angle once a police state is solidly in place, whereupon the authorities go to work with gusto taking away rights--starting with free speech. I'm not afraid of how Muslims will react to supposed slights. I know how they will react. I saw a woman smacked in the face in Detroit by an Arab male for literally opening her mouth, without saying anything. If I would have tried to intervene, the woman may have been beaten badly or even killed later on. We have an insoluble problem. I simply don't want to make it worse in the name of free speech. I guess we just disagree.
- magboy47.
September 18, 2012 at 7:26pm
"The people you mentioned--Lenin, Stalin, etc. were all operating in societies where religion had long been an oppressive force. In many cases they imposed state models that mimicked the religious models from their past. Stalin, who attended a seminary in his youth, almost lived Russian Orthodoxy while he was dictator. E.g., he copied some of their rituals, like the display and worship of icons, including those of himself. He also delivered speeches in the litany form that was common in Church sermons." While it is true that religion played an important role in Russian society, I see no evidence that Lenin and Stalin used religious notions to impose their rule on that society. If anything religious people were sent to Siberia and many Priests were killed. The model the Soviets used to impose their legitimacy came from what they considered science (dialectical science) filtered through the thought of Marx and Engels. Germany on the other hand did not have a tradition of religious absolutism. The absolutism in the German states was imposed by local rulers. I am not saying that religion can't lead to totalitarian thought, merely that within religion you have theoretically the concept of free agency that is absent from totalitarian thought. This is what makes Christianity and Judaism so schizophrenic. I am currently reading a book by the political philosopher Michael Walzer were he traditional Judaic thought about these very questions: from his viewpoint Judaism has both a streak of absolutism and a counter tradition of challenging this kind of God enforced absolutist rule. In God's Shadow: Politics in the Hebrew Bible (Yale University Press, 2012)
- arnon1
September 18, 2012 at 9:28pm
This is what compliance with Islamic regimes has gotten us: "Egypt Threatens to Execute American Citizens" http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/egypt-threatens-execute-american-citizens
- arnon1
September 18, 2012 at 9:48pm
arnon, The great majority of humans are still in the grip of at least religious-type thinking, if not actual religion. Leninism in Russia, which had very little to do with Marxism, was a religion. A practitioner had to accept all of it on faith, even when its tenets were changed by the state. Marxism is a religion, too, based on the faith that the workers will inherit the earth (boy, is that religion off-base). Religious or religious-type thinking still rules our planet. I give you the GOP. The Walzer book sounds interesting. I wish I had time to read it. Currently I'm reading a book about the Valkyrie plot to kill Hitler.
- magboy47.
September 18, 2012 at 10:06pm