Mims's Bits

Why Isn't YouTube Following Its Own Rules on Hate Speech?

The hosting provider for the "Burn a Koran Day" church pulled their site. So why hasn't Google?

Christopher Mims 09/09/2010

  • 16 Comments

Rackspace, the enterprise hosting solution started in 1998 that is also the greatest thing to come out of San Antonio, TX since the movie Selena launched J-Lo's career, has pulled the hosting accounts of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida.

The Dove Center, for those of you who have been living beyond the event horizon of a black hole, is the home of pastor Terry "civil war re-enactor mustache" Jones, who this Saturday was going to burn around 200 copies of the Quran until half the Obama administration, all major world religions and the Vatican asked him not to.

Rackspace's reasoning was simple: the center's site, now down but still visible in Google's cache, violated the contract all their hosting clients sign - which forbids hate speech.

YouTube also forbids hate speech. And Google has wisely provided an easy means to flag videos that constitute hate speech.

So why are the Dove World Outreach Center's many, many videos, under the heading The Braveheart Show, still on YouTube?

Google defines hate speech like this:

Speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity

This could easily be a case of differing standards. Rackspace, after all, made a judgement call in pulling the Dove Center's site. But considering YouTube's considerable reach and the fact that The Braveheart Show constituted the majority of the content on the center's now-defunct site, it's hard to see how Google could be applying standards that are substantially different from those outlined at Rackspace.

Rackspace's Acceptable Use Policy reads:

You may not publish, transmit or store on or via Rackspace's network and equipment any content or links to any content that Rackspace reasonably believes:

...

* is excessively violent, incites violence, threatens violence, or contains harassing content or hate speech

Rackspace does not go as far as Google - it doesn't define hate speech, but by any reasonable definition, the invective contained in the videos posted by Terry "Yosemite Sam" Jones fit the bill.

We'll see what Google does next. It seems possible, even likely, that were the company to intercede in this case, it might open the floodgates, forcing them to police YouTube content to an extent they'd rather not, given the scope of hate speech in the comments of YouTube videos, much less the videos themselves.

Follow Mims on Twitter or contact him via email.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

sanman

31 Comments

  • 516 Days Ago
  • 09/10/2010

Why is Tech Review Trying to Limit Speech?

I'm non-white and of asian descent, and I'm wondering what business Technology Review has in defining whose speech is legitimate and whose speech needs to be suppressed? Is this some kind of pressing technological challenge? Why are you delving into these areas, which seem out of place on what is supposed to be a technology-oriented journal? If I go to the IEEE Spectrum website, I can count on being able to read interesting articles on electrical engineering. I don't have to see the latest tabloid story thrust in my face over there.

Can you please beef up the engineering faculty on this site, and leave the liberal arts political theater to the myriad of other sites that wallow in it? The only discussion I'm interested in hearing on why something shouldn't be published somewhere is if it didn't pass peer review.

Thanks

Reply

shatuga

17 Comments

  • 513 Days Ago
  • 09/13/2010

Re: Why is Tech Review Trying to Limit Speech?

I would be inclined to give the blog section a bit more liberty on topics than the news section.  The point of the article to me was on the onerous job of having to enforce one's own policies over huge volumes of content.  Still, some points come to mind that weren't investigated:

How does the "report this video" function on YouTube hold up in practice?  Is it a good way to determine which videos might in fact need to be examined?

Does YouTube have competing business interests that RackSpace doesn't?  If YouTube pushes videos off its site, they will go elsewhere, and with YouTube, loss of market share is a killer.

Also, the article failed to mention the DOS attacks conducted on the "Dove Center" site.  I imagine part of RackSpace's interest involves the question "Does the site's presence on our servers jeopardize our other client relationships?"

Reply

malcarada

4 Comments

  • 516 Days Ago
  • 09/10/2010

I fail to see how burning a Quran is hate speech at all, American flags are burned every year and nobody seems to care.

BTW: Article is totally relevant, technology, in this case webhosting of controversial content has a lot to do with the internet future. We allow this now, the next thing you know Technology Review can be hate speech too if someone decides so.

Reply

Shine

22 Comments

  • 516 Days Ago
  • 09/10/2010

Why Isn't YouTube Following Its Own Rules on Hate Speech?

Hate speech regulations are bullshit, it's their website though so whatever.

Reply

barraponto

1 Comment

  • 515 Days Ago
  • 09/11/2010

Re: Why Isn't YouTube Following Its Own Rules on Hate Speech?

if you send hate speech in a letter through regular snail mail, it's not the post office nor the postman problem. There is regulation that protects them (carrier neutrality, i think it's called). There is no such regulation that protects web hosts: if you host someone else's website, it's your problem. Rackspace is saving their own ass.

Reply

jeany

2 Comments

  • 516 Days Ago
  • 09/10/2010

YouTube rules

Well, YouTube have it own rules, no need to do everything under the hate speech.

BTW: YouTube video fans can turn to this YouTube column to get some more tips&tutorial on 'The best video format for uploading to YouTube', 'How to download and embed YouTube videos to Keynote', 'How to download and convert YouTube 4K videos', even covers 'How to upload and edit YouTube videos'...
http://www.ifunia.com/how-tos.html

Reply

Hoosier2

7 Comments

  • 516 Days Ago
  • 09/10/2010

Hate Speech?

Terry "civil war re-enactor mustache" Jones and Terry "Yosemete Sam" Jones could be defined as hate speech in that it is demeaning and belittles this guy based on your disapprovlal of his appearance or your contempt for his actions.

Reply

Advertisement

jcplummer

9 Comments

  • 516 Days Ago
  • 09/10/2010

When you restrict one person's speech based on your perception and judgment you have threatened everyone's speech.  It seems to be politically correct to consider speech restrictions if they don't meet your standards.  The term "hate" used with speech, crime, etc. is just a contemporary method of thought control to give one group superiority over another.

Reply

flagrantedelicto

3 Comments

  • 516 Days Ago
  • 09/10/2010

Why Isn't YouTube Following Its Own Rules on Hate Speech?

Youtube didn't ban it because the guy is not making a hate speech - he is just stating facts.

Islam has declared war on the west and he is just stating that truth.

Get your facts right.

Reply

pasward

32 Comments

  • 516 Days Ago
  • 09/10/2010

Is the Koran  (and other religious texts) hate speech?

Disclaimer: I would not burn any book, nor do I like people who do so; I think it is fundamentally stupid.  That said, if you wish to go down the path of arguing that promoting burning of the Koran is hate speech, then surely there is enough material in the Koran, and in most (all?) religious texts, to more than qualify them as hate speech.  Indeed, burning the Koran is merely burning a book while the Koran itself advocates actions such as stoning to death adulterers, or the Bible advocates stoning children who are disrespectful to their parents.  If you want to ban people advocating burning some religious text, maybe you should look at the religious text and you will want to ban it too! 

Or maybe we can all grow up, behave like adults, and stop this stupid burning of books and stoning of people.

Reply

mfhurley

7 Comments

  • 516 Days Ago
  • 09/10/2010

Harassing Speech

I believe Mr. Mim's childish comment about the "civil war re-enactor mustache" could be considered harassing speech. Perhaps the MIT TR site should be shut down.

The larger issue of content censorship (relevant to TR) is poorly addressed here, apparently due to Mr. Mim's personal contempt for the pastor. Distasteful as it is, Pastor Jones has a right to voice his opinion and burn Korans. But I don't recall any previous outcry (by TR or others) over the numerous bible burnings and beatings (sometime killings) of Christians throughout the arab world, and extensive criticism of Christians throughout the left-wing media.

If we were to adhere to the letter-of-the-law with regard to Google's hate speech definition, most of the left-wing sites in the U.S. would have to be shuttered immediately (including the daily kos, no doubt one of Mr. Mim's favorites).

Reply

john_sadler

9 Comments

  • 516 Days Ago
  • 09/10/2010

nuances

Qurans and flags burn with the same moral fire, so presumably both are protected by the First Amendment to our Constitution. That said, it doesn't help us as a nation to point the finger at Islam rather than those who actually do the acts. It divides us from each other and gives our enemies recruiting tools. Maybe that's too subtle a point for the media.

@flagranted: get your own "facts" right. Islam is a religion, not a person or organization, and thus cannot declare war or anything else. I am tired of people making stuff up and calling it a fact.

Reply

flagrantedelicto

3 Comments

  • 511 Days Ago
  • 09/15/2010

Re: nuances

Oh don't play with semantics and pretend that you don't know what I mean.
Islam, muslim - WTF is the difference?
No one cares.
Get over it idiot.
You're not wanted in the west, you're not respected in the west and you're certainly not welcome in the west.
And why do you think that is?
It's your attitude problem, idiot.
Is that plain enough for you?

Reply

john_sadler

9 Comments

  • 502 Days Ago
  • 09/24/2010

Re: nuances

What's plain is that you're an insecure flamer who pretends his or her opinions are facts, and who can't have a civil debate. You are a symptom of the disease that is keeping our country from being its best.

Reply

Advertisement

shomas

245 Comments

  • 516 Days Ago
  • 09/10/2010

Glad to see

I'm Glad to see common sence reflected in the comments section defending free speach.

I wonder if it would be considerd hate speach to ask if this article be removed because of how it protrays some one else.

Serously people, always protect and defend free speach (even when you dont like what is said), and dont let yourselfs be drawn into acepting hate speach as unprotected.  Hate speach definitions will always be elusive, subjective, and used to make illegal, opnions that differ from those in power.

Reply

hanshusman

20 Comments

  • 512 Days Ago
  • 09/14/2010

Being myself interrested in language and how persons communicate things I can see value for me that it can be found on Youtube since it is easy to use for me and the obvious first I would search for it.

Here I doubt I would (if I ever will) check the movie clips if not on Youtube which if I do not might mean I miss some things of importance for the modell I try to create their such as his facial expression, and other cues, of emotions and personality (is feeling  happy from it or is he "power high" or is he worried? and so on) might check up on predictions done from text he written and so on.

I myself see little point of not allowing this kind of material on Youtube.

First it would among believers be viewed as a religious issue and providers such as Youtube should best keep their hands of such both due to free speach and more practical cause religious interrested persons tend to go over-excited and over-interpreting such which is a lot of bother.

Also I see no damage from it. What would the damage be? I doubt it convert anyone to burn holly books and the other religious team (the one with coach Allah) will be as irritated anyway.

And if it does no damage why would anyone call for a limitation on free speech? I  mean it isn't like we can create a perfect rule set now on what should be published. That have been tried before in history and it never worked good.

Reply

Bio

Christopher Mims is a journalist who covers technology and science for just about everybody.

Subscribe to the Mims's Bits RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement