Erm, Yvette, free speech luv, free speech

MPs condemned Google for not taking down a video by a former Ku Klux Klan leader which accused Jews of masterminding the genocide of white people because it did not breach its guidelines.

He’s a ghastly thug to be sure but that free speech stuff does still apply to him.

And she expressed disbelief when Google’s vice-president said the recording posted by David Duke, a notorious Holocaust denier, did not “breach our guidelines”.

The recording, broadcast on YouTube, accuses “Zionists” of having “ethnically cleansed the Palestinians” and planning to do “the same thing to Europeans and Americans”.

Ms Cooper told Google’s Peter Barron: “You allow David Duke to upload an entire video which is all about malicious and hateful comments about Jewish people. How on earth is that not a breach of your own guidelines? I think most people would be appalled by that video and think it goes against all standards of public decency in this country.”

He’s allowed to breach public decency sweetie. What he’s not allowed to do is break the law.

She said: “We understand the challenges you face … but you all have millions of users in the UK and you make billions of pounds from these users.

“You all have a terrible reputation among users for dealing swiftly with problems in content even against your own community standards.

“Surely when you manage to have such a good reputation with advertisers for targeting content and for doing all kinds of sophisticated things with your platforms, surely you should be able to do a better job in order to be able to keep your users safe online and deal with this kind of hate speech.”

Clearly that sort of hate speech isn’t illegal for no one’s prosecuting Duke, are they?

Twitter suspended three accounts that were highlighted to it by MPs but one, which included a tweet with a hashtag “deport all Muslims”, remained.

Nick Pickles, from the microblogging site, said that while it was “highly offensive” the tweet did not breach its rules around hateful conduct.

Quite so….

35 comments on “Erm, Yvette, free speech luv, free speech

  1. Free Speech is a bourgeois confection used to disguise bigotry as a quasi-Liberal cause. It exists where people no connection between speech and action.
    If, lets us say, Tim Worstall, encourages ideas that create murderous populism, rape, racism and economic collapse; he is complicit in each. There is no neat line between speech and action, and who supports” Freedom of action”?
    BUT
    “”‘beauty is truth, truth beauty,’ – that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know” -John Keats
    As the lies that brought about Brexit collapse, I wish that UKIP had had representation in Parliament so their drivel might have been shown as the manure it is. As it is they have been free to blame immigrants for house prices low wages underfunded services and any number of mendacious excuses for ethnic cleansing.
    So what is required is a place in which lies can be spoken and ritually destroyed by the Nations sacramental inquisitors, a place like Parliament or the courts.
    Their malicious repetition, however may reasonably be treated as we treat theft

    “You Wostrall are nicked , come along with me sonny……..”
    “ But I only said ……. Officer ..no no help… what about free speech ….eeeeek”

  2. British left wing politician, from a party famed for outlawing opinions they don’t like, has no conception of the second amendment, unsurprising.

    How joyous it would be if he had the guts to reply “your opinion means nothing, google is hosted in a free country, second amendment sweetheart.”

  3. I knew that, even googled it to be sure and still wrote the wrong thing. Well, it’s not yet 7am and I’m still in bed (on holiday) I’ll blame last night’s merriment.

  4. If, lets us say, Tim Worstall, encourages ideas that create murderous populism, rape, racism and economic collapse; he is complicit in each.

    I’ve seen Tim called many things, but that’s the first time I’ve seen him called a communist.

    There is no neat line between speech and action,

    WTFF? Seriously?

  5. No neat line between speech and action means those who define what is acceptable can draw the line where they like. This alone should send shivers down the spine of any normal thinker. Who gets to define? Who gets to choose the boundaries of speech? Who choosers the chooser? Etc etc

  6. “Free Speech is a bourgeois confection used to disguise bigotry as a quasi-Liberal cause.”

    That is the quintessence of vacuous marxist guff, comrade.

  7. NewRemainia : You really should be painting your face red with a Hammer & Sickle rather than Union Jack colour. And swap the St George Cross for little swastika flags on your car.

    Thanks for the insight into the true values of the EU and the middle-class socialism of its Remainiac supporters.

  8. – “…to keep your users safe online…”

    The left’s deeply held assumption is that ordinary people are not adults but children. It explains and justifies so much of what they believe and do.

  9. If Yvette can get the company to alter Utoob guidelines then no free speech laws are changed, yay Liberal Democracy. Could work. Depends how gangster government are prepared to be about it.

  10. Newmania – “It exists where people no connection between speech and action.”

    Isn’t it interesting that there is no verb between people and no connection. See? Believe? Draw? Who knows? By all means, let us agree there is a deep connection between speech and action. Then computer games ought to be banned. So should any mention of homosexuality in public. And divorce. Pornography. This is sounding better and better.

    “If, lets us say, Tim Worstall, encourages ideas that create murderous populism, rape, racism and economic collapse; he is complicit in each.”

    Is he? If I tell you to go stick your penis in a blender, is there the odd chance you will? But by all means, let’s jail all the socialists because of Stalin. I am liking this world more and more.

    “There is no neat line between speech and action, and who supports” Freedom of action”?”

    Is that so? We should ban anyone who expresses any envy of the rich because that encourages theft and revolution?

    “As it is they have been free to blame immigrants for house prices low wages underfunded services and any number of mendacious excuses for ethnic cleansing.”

    I have yet to see the ethnic cleansing but I live in hope. All those things are true. Whether you like them or not.

  11. This sort of stuff is hardly unknown in the Liberal Democrats and Cooper’s own party. Can’t remember campaigns to ban them.

    Our government also throws money, in the interests of “community cohesion”, at ‘vibrant’ people who share the same opinion.

    All of this happens in our country, the one our MPs are elected to represent, but they choose the hissy fit over someone five thousand miles away.

  12. Hallowed Be: “Could work. Depends how gangster government are prepared to be about it.”

    Yvette isn’t ‘government’. The British voter said ‘Err, no thanks, no more of that..’ at the last two opportunities.

  13. Google’s take on this is curious. Any old media company would remove controversial material forthwith: Milo’s book deal is the most recent example. Google seems to think it’s above all this: it’s merely operating the printing machines, not governing editorial policy. But isn’t that just a luxury it can afford because it has a market-dominating position? If it faced serious competition from Bing, Vimeo, etc., it would be a lot quicker to remove unpleasant content.

    I note that there’s no porn on YouTube, so there’s clearly some degree of editorial control.

  14. Julia M
    Well that is indeed true. I projected a little to see where this is going. Google say we follow the law and our own guidelines, and the video is ok by both. You’re in charge of the law dear House of P, don’t like something that’s legal then change the law.
    Yvette can see in or out of the executive she is going to run into problems when she calls a vote on her law, namely people who believe in free speech. Far simpler to get google to change the guidelines. And as you point out she’s not really in a position to get very gangster at all, but if she was then a route would be to try and dent Google dominiance through some sort of competition heat.

  15. Why isn’t there a political party in the UK which unequivocally advocates

    free speech, capitalism, small government, personal responsibility?

    Most people, especially salt of the earth types who keep the country going, seem to support these ideals. Especially when they are framed against the alternative. Is this slow descent into liberal fascism inevitable? Why isn’t the Conservative Party using it’s excessive polling buffer to promote conservative values?

  16. Andrew M, there is significant ‘editorial’ control. Aside from nudity/porn, uploads will be scanned for signs of copyright infringement etc. Three strikes of those and your channel can get blocked. Beyond that, questionable videos can be ‘defunded’ ie receive no share of the revenue from ads shown on their videos. There’s probably a lot more, I’m no expert.

    The approach seems to be aggressive takedown of content that may cause Google legal trouble, but wanting the biggest possible audience beyond that. If it doesn’t spook the horses, let the search algorithms keep people from content they don’t want to see. Seems reasonable.

  17. NielsR,

    > questionable videos can be ‘defunded’

    Aye, but Google still gets its ad revenues.

    I’m not criticising them – if anything I’m moderately pleased at the approach that our benevolent dictator Google has chosen. My question is how long can it last? Every large media company eventually caves into liberal pressure.

  18. “I think most people would be appalled by that video”

    Good. The more people who get to see it, and in doing so are appalled by it, then all the better. Google is clearly delivering a benefit to society.

    Yvette Cooper can fuck off.

  19. BREAKING NEWS: Woman thinks everyone should be nice. More at 11.

    Re: the implausibly haired “Doctor” David Duke, he’s the Emmanuel Goldstein of racism. If he didn’t exist, the FBI would have to recruit some other gurning mong to fulfil his role as the establishment’s favourite bogeyman.

  20. Andrew M – for a site with no porn there appears to be a lot of porn. You could spend weeks watching nothing but porn.

  21. Newmania

    ‘If, lets us say, Richard Murphy, Paul Mason and Owen Jones encourage ideas that create murderous populism, rape, racism and economic collapse; they are complicit in each. There is no neat line between speech and action, and who supports” Freedom of action”?

    I noticed your paragraph had several typos – fixed it for you as Tim has no autocorrect on the blog…

  22. James g at 9.22.

    They’re either thick, assume that part of the electorate will vote for them anyway through lack of choice, have no vision or are so stuck in their bubble they’ve swallowed all the PC crap. All all four.

  23. Andrew M, “My question is how long can it last?”

    Depends, the looser the content restrictions and the bigger the user base, the more likely the SJWs will be distracted by stuff they approve of, and not notice the other end of the spectrum.

  24. Just finished reading the Circle by Dave eggers, like all good satires it has that element of truth that in this case makes it a little creepy.

  25. Newmania

    So you simultaneously i) believe that
    “Free Speech is a bourgeois confection used to disguise bigotry as a quasi-Liberal cause” and ii) wish
    “that UKIP had had representation in Parliament so their drivel might have been shown as the manure it is.”

    Er, OK.

  26. Meanwhile SMFS informs us that “I have yet to see the ethnic cleansing but I live in hope.”

    Free speech doesn’t differentiate between Thick.Marxist.Pricks and Thick.Racist.Pricks.

  27. “I note that there’s no porn on YouTube, so there’s clearly some degree of editorial control.”
    There’s a lot of porn on YouTube, although most of the dialogue is not in English.

  28. But isn’t that just a luxury it can afford because it has a market-dominating position? If it faced serious competition from Bing, Vimeo, etc., it would be a lot quicker to remove unpleasant content.

    Is it not the reverse? If they don’t show stuff that others do, then people will migrate to where they can see/do what they want. To hold their enormous market share must involve allowing the widest range of opinions.

  29. Magnusw,

    No, you were right. Without the Second Amendment, the rest of the Constitution is just words on paper.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.