Is YouTube feeding the regional crackdown on cyber-activists?
I wrote this article recently for Menassat, a website “focusing on news, trends and events concerning the media in the twenty-two countries of the MENA region.” (Read about the site here.)
Screenshot of an Egyptian torture video.
The internet has been a prominent tool for human rights activists to convey and receive controversial information. Many interactive websites allow activists to network, help, and empower each other.
One of such sites is YouTube, a video-sharing network where users can upload and host videos. YouTube continues to serve as a vital source for videos that reveal various human rights abuses such as police brutality in restricted countries like Egypt and Iran.
Many activists were comforted in the knowledge that new technology is aiding their efforts in increasing awareness about the injustices taking place in censorship-ridden societies.
Egyptian blogger and anti-torture activist Wael Abbas is one of several Egyptians who take advantage of the many benefits of sites like YouTube to further their struggle for justice in their country. Abbas’ videos contained unpleasant and alarming scenes of police brutality in Egypt, many of which were revealed for the very first time.
Reactions such videos were receiving only proved the growing influence of YouTube, which undoubtedly inspired other activists to find and circulate videos that were relevant to their efforts. Videos of rallies, court cases or interviews of controversial bloggers such as the currently imprisoned Kareem Amer soon became a common find for users seeking civil rights in Egypt.
This, one would think, is a positive outcome of technology. For once, rampant regional censorship couldn’t stop us from accessing videos that showed the true nature of certain governments and what they were actively trying to hide from the public.
YouTube apparently holds a different viewpoint.
Last week, its staff suspended Abbas’ YouTube account for several days, causing the deletion of dozens of videos that reveal torture taking place in Egyptian prisons.
To YouTube’s credit, Abbas’ account was restored only days after its suspension, likely due to public concerns and pressure, but with all of the videos removed.
Videos of Abbas’ media appearances concerning his cyber-activism were also deleted, even though these videos contained absolutely no violence or graphic footage that could have been in violation of the website’s policy and legal use.
Why, then, couldn’t YouTube only remove the videos in question?
Why did YouTube terminate Abbas’ account entirely, making all of his videos inaccessible?
Since November 2006, YouTube has been officially owned by Google Inc. It’s therefore safe to assume that both sites maintain a similar philosophy. The mission of Google, as stated on Google’s official page, is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally useful and accessible.”
But how can people make universal use out of Google’s products if its staff seemingly practices censorship?
How can people find or have access to certain information if Google suspends user accounts without issuing a valid reason or prior notice?
Is Google’s YouTube really functioning to serve and apply its stated mission as best as possible?
One can’t help but ponder such questions, seeing as this is not the first time YouTube caves to state-sponsored censorship.
In May of this year, WebProNews, a popular newsletter about eBusiness professionals, featured an article by Doug Caverly who wrote about the controversy concerning an inappropriate video on YouTube which mocked Ataturk, the first President of the Turkish Republic.
The Turkish authorities responded by banning the website, and YouTube consequently removed the offending videos from its server. According to TechCrunch, a blog that profiles and reviews internet companies, YouTube gave in to Turkish censorship twice within a span of only 2 months.
Several websites, including the Committee to Protect Bloggers, wrote about YouTube’s trend of removing politically motivated videos that often get regional authorities complaining.
Turkey’s ban of YouTube was soon followed by a ban of WordPress, a blog publishing platform used by at least 20,000 bloggers in Turkey to express their opinions. When WordPress’ founding developer Matt Mullenweg learned about the ban, he noted that WordPress would never jeopardize Turkish bloggers’ freedom of speech. As a result, none of the “offensive” blogs were removed by the WordPress staff.
YouTube has reacted quite differently; it has made no effort to protect freedom of speech or human rights activism.
The ultimate question is why?
Why was Abbas’ account suspended?
Why are we no longer exposed to a grave injustice committed by the Egyptian government?
Could YouTube not take WordPress’s lead in protecting the rights of its users by challenging the governments in question instead of blindly serving them?
YouTube does have a policy against violent videos, but it seems to be quite selective in the application of this rule. There are many videos that feature violence or graphic scenes, and instead of deleting them, YouTube merely requests that the viewers are registered and are at least 18 years of age.
Simon Columbus, who runs Blogger for Freedom, notes that YouTube hosts various versions of the beating of Rodney King, which is also violent. They remain widely viewed and circulated on YouTube, perhaps due to the historical significance of the incident.
Abbas’ videos are equivalent in terms of social significance. The intention is to increase awareness about certain corrupt practices taking place within Egypt. In no way do these videos promote such violent tactics, quite to the contrary.
If YouTube prides itself on its mission, which is to empower its users to become the “broadcasters of tomorrow”, perhaps they should allow users to use the influential website as a tool to escape censorship.
If YouTube practices censorship whenever a government official complains about supposedly “inappropriate” or “illegal” videos, it will not allow its users to become the “broadcasters of tomorrow” in many parts of the world.
If Google truly wants to uphold its standards of free information for the masses, perhaps they should help empower the people who are risking their lives for a taste of the freedom that Google preaches.
del.icio.us
BlogMemes
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Google
Reddit
Facebook
TwitThis
Mixx
Loading ...
You make a compelling argument Esra’a, and this is an excellent article as usual, but I’m not sure I agree with your conclusions.
It’s inconvenient to rely on sites like YouTube, Facebook, etcetc, but these sites are available for us free of charge. The TOS implies that they DO hold rights to remove any video which they deem questionable. If we don’t like it, too bad. 100 other video hosts to pick from. Don’t you think? Just because we lose viewership doesn’t mean they’re guilty of censorship. They got rules and we have to abide by them if we want to use their service. This is true for any site.
Hi Murad, thanks for your comment.
I disagree with it.
Google is a multi-billion dollar internet company. They continue to buy off smaller companies and thus placing a growing part of the internet under a monopoly. Sure, we have “alternatives,” it’s not like they’re any better. Especially since Google’s philosophy is all about “freedom,” have you ever read “The Google Story” by David Vice? It’s all about marketing Google as a positive philosophy; how the company was built on “dreams” and blah blah. We are not so happy with what’s going on, and frankly it’s our right as users to complain.
I compare what’s happening right now on the internet with what happened years ago and what continues to happen with the 6 big corporations owning most of the mainstream news outlets in the USA (news agencies or film companies that have a big impact internationally as well.) It limits free speech, discourages public participation, and misleads public opinion. We become mindless automatons just being talked to.
We have no choice but to use sites like YouTube to express our messages. It’s an important platform for us, and we don’t want to lose it merely because it’s free of charge anyways and we have no choice but to swallow everything its administration does.
I’m just saying that Google is becoming increasingly disappointing, for such a huge company with growing influence in everything that we do online. Not just with YouTube but with blogspot, gmail, etc. Consider this recent story:
Should we be worried?
Yes we should.
Google didn’t develop these sites in the first place. They buy them off, and will continue to do so. Many people started using YouTube way before Google got their grubby hands on it; ditto with blogspot. These are all essential platforms of free speech which Google is interfering with through its big $$ which it seemingly places ahead of its mission.
Sure, you make good points. But it’s not like the internet itself is owned by Google, people always have to option to choose from which sites they get to participate in or better yet, they can do what MEY.com did and develop their own.
Murad my friend, it doesn’t work like that.
The people who need professional platforms and community-based like YouTube for their activism are usually not the ones who can just “do it themselves.” If you have an urgent video to share, the best way to do it is through YouTube where it can be circulated throughout the site, favorited, and linked by thousands within just a few hours.
If they’re gonna be policemen about it fine, let them. They should remove all the freedom-loving jargons from their mission statements. If they keep this up they can be credited with being a younger version of News Corp.
I wouldn’t call it “freedom loving jargons.” All mission statements are flowery, they just want to achieve their goals a certain way, which we may find inconvenient. I’m not losing any sleep or money by the way these corps go about their businesses.
No, but you’re losing certain rights and privileges, as well as access to lots of information.
I think it is a tragic shame that we have reached a point where many people think corporations are somehow superior to their ‘consumers’ and that that is also somehow acceptable.
Tamara, I agree. These corporations thrive on their users/viewers/paid subscribers. Without us using their services, they’re nothing. If they keep this up I really hope to see it backfire in the worst way possible, where people just start leaving and letting them realize that this is not how we want such sites to be handled.
Too bad 70% of YouTube is a bunch of 13 year olds talking about Paris Hilton’s new hairdo (leik ohmygosh, pink is sooo in!). There’s lots of trash on that site, videos I wish I can just crumble up and throw against the wall. And it’s fine that they’re on there, the tagline is “broadcast yourself,” after all, and this includes incredible bores with no lives. But then we see real videos, ones that hold much importance, being removed from the database for reasons that are very unclear. YouTube’s got some explaining to do to the public at least!
A public and sincere apology is the least they can do. Google used to be good at that, remember? “We’re sorry that we gave in to censorship in China!” after people began questioning their ethics. And then, “we’re sorry that Jew Watch comes first for ‘Jew’ in Google search!” so how about “yes, we wrongly suspended a member’s account and made him lose all his videos and we’re sorry for that, too!” it’s not so hard and would help us restore our faith in their services at least.
Why should they apologise? They’re not forcing us to use their products. It’s a big company with very big operations. They have a lot of responsibilities.
A big part of which is user satisfaction.
Murad, this is the WHOLE POINT! It is a big and growing company owning and recording our every move which they can turn in to the relevant authorities when threatened to do so (with something even as simple as a “blockage.”) Because God forbid they lose traffic/profits. I mean even if you want to avoid using Google, every freakin’ tab has a Google search on it, on most websites, and they’re shoving their butts in everyone’s businesses wanting a piece of the action.
It’s like a cancerous tumor growing on the internet, and it’s time for us to convince it to take some medication if it doesn’t calm down. We don’t want to lose the war for free speech on the internet.
Murad,
Would you agree that the mainstream media represents reality poorly and in a relatively biased manner?
If you do, then you are also likely to agree that the information we get from the mainstream media is greatly informed and determined by the interests of the investors in these multi-national mega corporations, that dominate this industry. I am not saying that there are no alternatives to the mainstream, simply highlighting the types of sources of information from which the ‘majority’ of the people will base their opinion.
This domination by mega corporations, is no different from the so far succeful attempt by certain other corporations to dominate the internet - video sharing, blogging etc… If this is successful, then we are under a very real threat of losing, as Esra’a has pointed out, our right to free speech on one of the most popular, most effective means of communication we have today.
If what we have to say is not in line with or somehow upsets the ‘investors’ and their cash flow, then we are silenced and crushed, or so much easier with technology now.. ‘erased’. Do we really want an ‘internets’ that looks like the mainstream media?? Do we really want the people’s only source of information to be guided by the standard of thought and discussion that is available on the mainstream media?
Why should we only expect to receive something adequate if we are willing to pay a huge fee? The internet can’t just become another area that capitalism can dominate and/or destroy.
This quote by Einstein is just as applicable today, and can be extended to corporations and their use, control and manipulation of the people, for their own financial and political gains.
If Google are focused on there business model and cash flow, then censorship is not a good shout for them, no matter where the influence is coming from. It would take a hell of a PR company to reverse the damaging effects of that. I have to say, I haven’t had that problem accessing info on Google, I think for the most part, it allows controversial issues to be posted on its sites, and is careful in the way it is perceived. I’m sure if enough people started detecting a substantial shift in googles agenda, google would have a major problem
Hey, I know I am off topic but I read a disturbing story yesterday about honor killings in Israel. I would like to get the word out and help these women but I am very busy at work these days. Since the topic seems very relevant to this blog I was thus wondering if anyone here would like to follow this story. See Here. Thanx
Its been noted. We’ll follow it up.
[…] due to videos of torture which he had posted. Though his account was re-activated a few days later, all his videos had been removed. YouTube’s side of the story is that Abbas had violated their terms of use by posting videos […]