Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google gives UK government “super flagger” status for YouTube?

computing.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 105 posts

Re: Google gives UK government “super flagger” status for YouTube?

#71

Post by hahainternet »

sentenza wrote: post #14
CodeMage wrote: post #11

Does that make flagged videos unavailable only in UK? Somehow I doubt it, but it would really be cool if that were the case. Want censorship in your country? Knock yourself out!

Why do they have to make one of the biggest asshats in the room the superflagger? Between them and the music industry, there won't be much Youtube left for UKians to watch. That is, assuming they really only block it inside the UK. They certainly can't make the video unavailable for everybody or we'll soon have a Youtube that is filled only with the intersecting "this is acceptable" sets of all governments. On the ot…

> That is, assuming they really only block it inside the UK. They certainly can't make the video unavailable for everybody or we'll soon have a Youtube that is filled only with the intersecting "this is acceptable" sets of all governments.

Youtube makes the final decision.

Re: Google gives UK government “super flagger” status for YouTube?

#72

Post by [deleted] »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #66
Jugurtha wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am familiar with UK History, ChuckMcM. There were really ugly periods. That's why I think that if anyone should actively be against terrorism, it's the UK ! And that's why I was surprized by the passivity of the Government with the likes of Abu Hamza in the streets calling for shedding the blood of the "unfaithful".

ok, I didn't get that from your original post but I understand the question. My take on it is that the UK has tried a variety of reaction strategies to terrorist threats which have had varying levels of success. And the people have varying levels of trust in their government which then colors their interpretation of the actions a government might take and the reaction to their actions. In many ways I think the UK fea…

[deleted]

Re: Google gives UK government “super flagger” status for YouTube?

#73

Post by GigabyteCoin »

lclarkmichalek wrote: post #8
guylhem wrote: post #4

What if I don't agree with the UK government views on say freedom of speech? And why the UK government? What about giving that same power to the government of Afghanistan for example? From a utilitarian perspective, they could use that "superflagger status" to prevent the spread of videos that have lead to violence in the past. One simple example : http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/google-remove-riot-spa... Howev…

No, the video is the problem. People's words, be they transferred by video, television, or just print, have inspired people to do things ranging from the horrendous to the amazing. Speech is not innocent, which is all the more reason to keep it free.

Then perhaps we need to teach more children about the consequences of war?

Nobody could convince someone educated in the consequences of war to rise up and fight their war for them.

Censoring free speach is never the right answer imho.

Re: Google gives UK government “super flagger” status for YouTube?

#74

Post by guylhem »

mangeletti wrote: post #59
lclarkmichalek wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the video is the problem. People's words, be they transferred by video, television, or just print, have inspired people to do things ranging from the horrendous to the amazing. Speech is not innocent, which is all the more reason to keep it free.

Essential liberties (e.g., USA Bill of Rights, etc.) have to appreciated dogmatically for them to remain intact. As soon as people enter into arguments about the utility and practicality of essential liberties, they begin to appear to validate the concerns of an oppressor. In other words, if you believe in your freedom, you should fight for it, not try to convince others of the pragmatic values of having it.

I fully and totally agree, upvoted you and wish I could upvote you even more (hopefully, others will!), especially considering the parent post you replied to.

Ideas (and videos, and guns) don't kill people. People kill people.

It has always been, and will likely persist for a very long time.

Utilitarianism be damned - not a single millimetre of freedom should be sacrificed in a vain attempt to limit that human tendency.

Re: Google gives UK government “super flagger” status for YouTube?

#76

Post by arethuza »

Jugurtha wrote: post #58
ChuckMcM wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually if you know UK history you'd know that terrorism has been both religious (in the form of Protestant and Catholic conflicts), territorial (in the the form of sovereignty issues with places like Ireland and Scotland), as well as a variety of political intrigues and plots to balance out the power of the monarchy and the people. Most older folks though remember the IRA bombings[1] as the most recent scourge. [1]…

I am familiar with UK History, ChuckMcM. There were really ugly periods. That's why I think that if anyone should actively be against terrorism, it's the UK ! And that's why I was surprized by the passivity of the Government with the likes of Abu Hamza in the streets calling for shedding the blood of the "unfaithful".

"That's why I think that if anyone should actively be against terrorism, it's the UK"

I hope that the one lesson that we as a country learned from the Troubles in Northern Ireland was that the strategy to deal with terrorists is actually to sit down and find out why they are so pissed off.

Re: Google gives UK government “super flagger” status for YouTube?

#77

Post by thisiswrong »

By reading the top comments here it feels like Cameron's fascist gvt also has a "super flagger" up-voting status on HN. I mean come on, it feels like I'm on Reddit [1] all over again. Only a sock puppet [2] would say this:

> I'm from Algeria and the UK showed great hospitality to extremists calling for killing us from the foggy London streets. They allowed that in the name of democracy and freedom of speech. Easy being a democracy when what the extremists do isn't harming you.

> It took the fhit to hit the san for them to wake up and do something about it.. How about freedom of speech now when terrorist actions are conducted on the UK soil

[1] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140226/11344026358/reddit...

[2] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula...

Re: Google gives UK government “super flagger” status for YouTube?

#78

Post by bananas »

hahainternet wrote: post #70
bananas wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I nearly got my arse blown off in 7/7/2005 and spent the best part of 4 hours stuck on a tube train behind one full of dead people. I don't support any censorship. If someone wants to publish this shit, let them. You're a bona fide idiot if you bother with it. Censorship, brainwashing, media control and years of religious dogma turned them into cowardly bombers to start with.

> Censorship, brainwashing, media control and years of religious dogma turned them into cowardly bombers to start with. Censorship turns people into suicide bombers? I think the fact that the rest of what you listed is actually transmitted over things like Youtube completely negates your point.

Yes.

Don't forget this is only the start of censorship. The progression is as follows:

1. Censorship is forbidden.

2. Censorship is a subset of all things.

3. All things is a subset of censorship.

4. Censorship is universal.

At that point, people are puppets by nurture. They're then controlled by the will of the people who control the information.

Then when all you know is hatred and a single view than you're easily taken and trained.

Re: Google gives UK government “super flagger” status for YouTube?

#80

Post by Crito »

hahainternet wrote: post #69
Crito wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying that speech cannot be used to organize great crimes. I am saying that the bar for responsibility or fault is nowhere even near "inspired".

"goad"? "facilitate"? What's the boundary?

Either of those, or "inciting", seem like reasonable boundaries when it is goading/facilitating/inciting specific illegal action.
Post reply on HN