NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] How to Destroy YouTube
How to Destroy YouTube
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000989.html
World events are continuing to keep Google's YouTube in the news, as a
maelstrom of arguments about free speech vs. censorship spin around
the vortex of continuing Mideast unrest.
I have noted previously that I am a tremendous fan of YouTube, even
while I've expressed concerns about various of the complex issues that
Google faces in keeping YouTube running as a global service.
Recently, in "Saving YouTube from the Choking Web of Rights"
( http://j.mp/Qv7iqY [Lauren's Blog] ), I discussed YouTube matters
associated with copyright and Content ID, and in "YouTube Blocking
the Anti-Islamic Video: Censorship or Responsible Stewardship?"
( http://j.mp/R04pkD ), I explicitly endorsed YouTube's selective and
limited blocking of a notorious anti-Islamic video.
Controversies surrounding that video and YouTube are continuing
unabated, however.
"The New York Times" yesterday, in "Free Speech in the Age of YouTube"
( http://j.mp/RSVqfR ), discussed Columbia professor Tim Wu's recent
proposal for a sort of "external oversight board" to make tough
decisions about controversial YouTube video takedown situations.
I have great respect for Tim, and we both agree that Google was
correct in their targeted blocking of the anti-Islamic video in the
current case.
And to his credit, Tim lays out in his proposal some of the reasons
why such a plan might not succeed ( http://j.mp/RSVEn5 [The New Republic] ).
Unfortunately, I feel forced to go further down this latter path, and
suggest that the proposal -- if implemented -- would not only fail,
but also could make the situation regarding YouTube and censorship
questions far more complex and problematic, potentially leaving us in
a much worse place than where we started.
One reason for this should be pretty obvious. An external group
making such decisions likely wouldn't have any significant "skin in
the game" in a legal sense. They could make whatever decisions they
wanted, with deference to free speech and high ideals, yet Google
would ultimately be the party legally vulnerable to any negative
results of those decisions.
It's difficult in the extreme to imagine Google being willing to cede
such decision-making authority to an outside group. I'd certainly be
unwilling to do so if I were in Google's position.
Even if such a group operated only in an adversary capacity, so long
as its decisions were officially made public (or leaked publicly),
there would be enormous pressure on Google to conform with such
decisions, even when internal Google data and knowledge indicated that
this would unwise for any number of reasons not publicly known.
The logistics of Tim's proposal also seem largely unworkable. He
acknowledges that (for example) trying to herd YouTube users into some
sort of advisory capacity could be difficult, but invokes Wikipedia as
an example of a possible model.
Though I admire much of what Wikipedia has accomplished, it seems like
a very poor model for a YouTube advisory system. Wikipedia is often
accused -- with considerable merit -- of not taking responsibility for
inaccuracies in its materials. Battles over edits and changes are
legendary, even while all manner of known errors persist throughout
its corpus. Political and commercial battles are fought by proxy
among Wikipedia editors, usually by anonymous parties of unknown
expertise operating under pseudonyms.
This is not the kind of structure appropriate for making decisions
about YouTube videos in the sort of charged atmosphere we're dealing
with today, with potential immediate and long-term real-world
consequences for lives, property, and more.
The proper venue for these decisions is internally at Google. They
are in the best position to determine how to react to these
situations, including demands from governments, other organizations,
and individuals. Google ultimately is the party with any legal
exposure from these decisions, so the decisions must be theirs.
If Google feels it appropriate to privately reach out to external
experts and observers for input relating to these situations, all well
and good. Perhaps they're already doing that. But this can't
reasonably take place in the hothouse of the public sphere, where
every comment or speculation will likely trigger endless arguing,
exploitation, and trolling that will only inflame passions, not lead
toward reasoned decisions.
Personally, I have faith that Google will do their best to weigh the
many involved factors honestly, and make the best possible decisions
in an area where we are faced almost entirely with shades of gray,
rarely with black and white certainties. Not only does YouTube's
overall trajectory over time suggest this path, but it's also in
Google's own best interests to navigate this course with all possible
diligence and care.
And frankly, I believe that any moves toward external decision-making
in these regards would also tend to inevitably open the door to a
slippery slope of outside pressures that would ultimately take aim at
effective control of more than just YouTube, attempting to also gain
strangleholds on search results and other affiliated services
as well -- a nightmare scenario we must avoid at all costs.
That's my opinion, anyway.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
- Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
_______________________________________________
nnsquad mailing list
http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad