Censorship by Google

Google and its subsidiary companies, such as YouTube, have removed or omitted information from its services in order to comply with company policies, legal demands, and government censorship laws.[1]

Numerous governments have asked Google to censor content. In 2012, Google ruled in favor of more than half the requests they received via court orders and phone calls. This did not include China or Iran, who completely blocked the site.[2]

Google AdSense

In February 2003, Google stopped showing advertisements from Oceana, a non-profit organization protesting against a major cruise ship operation's sewage treatment practices. Google, citing its editorial policy, stated that "Google does not accept advertising if the ad or site advocates against other individuals, groups, or organizations."[3] The policy was later changed.[4]

In April 2014, Google accepted ads from the pro-choice abortion lobbying group NARAL, but removed ads for some anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. Google removed the web search ads after an investigation by NARAL found evidence that the ads violated Google's policy against deceptive advertising. According to NARAL, people using Google to search for abortion clinics found advertisements for pro-life pregnancy crisis centers. Google stated that it had followed company procedures in applying its ad policy standards related to ad relevance, clarity, and accuracy.[5]

In September 2018, Google removed a paid advertisement from YouTube made by supporters of Russian opposition who urged Russians to participate in a protest set on September 9. Russia's Central Election Commission earlier sent a request to Google to remove the advertisement, saying it violated election laws that call for a "day of silence" on election matters ahead of voting, but the advertisement was blocked even in regions with no voting set on September 9 and in regions where authorities had authorized the pension-reform protests.[6]

Google Maps
See also: Google Maps

In March 2007, the lower-resolution satellite imagery on Google Maps showing post-Hurricane Katrina damage in Louisiana, US, was allegedly replaced with higher resolution images from before the storm.[7] Google's official blog post in April revealed that the imagery was still available in KML format on Google Earth or Google Maps.[8][9][10]

In March 2008, Google removed Street View and 360º images of military bases per the Pentagon's request.[11]

To protect the privacy and anonymity of individuals, Google selectively blurred photographs containing car license number plates and faces in Google Street View. Users may request further blurring of images that feature them, their family, their car, or their home. Users can also request the removal of images that feature what Google terms "inappropriate content," which falls under their categories of intellectual property violations; sexually explicit content; illegal, dangerous, or violent content; child endangerment; hate speech; harassment and threats; and personal or confidential information.[12] In some countries (e.g. Germany), Google modifies images of specific buildings.[13] In the United States, Google Street View adjusts or omits certain images deemed of interest to national security by the federal government.[11]

See also: Google Search

In the United States, Google commonly filters search results to comply with Digital Millennium Copyright Act-related legal complaints.[14]

In the United Kingdom, it was reported that Google had "delisted" Inquisition 21, a website that claims to challenge moral authoritarian and sexually absolutist ideas in the United Kingdom. Google later released a press statement suggesting Inquisition 21 had attempted to manipulate search results.[15] In Germany and France, a study reported that approximately 113 white nationalist, Nazi, anti-semitic, Islamic extremist, and other similar websites had been removed from the German and French versions of Google.[16] Google has complied with these laws by not including sites containing such material in its search results. However, Google does list the number of excluded results at the bottom of the search result page and links to Lumen (formerly, Chilling Effects) for an explanation.[1]

Lolicon content

As of 18 April 2010, Google censors "lolicon," a Japanese term meaning "attractive young girls", on its search results, hiding meaningful results regarding lolicon material, even if the user types words along with the term which would typically lead to explicit content results; the terms "loli" and "lolita" also suffer from censorship in regards to this content.[17][18]

Removal of SafeSearch options
Main article: SafeSearch

As of 12 December 2012, in countries like the U.S., U.K., and Australia, Google removed the option to turn off the SafeSearch image filter entirely, forcing users to enter more specific search queries to get adult content. Prior to this change, three SafeSearch settings—"on", "moderate", and "off"—were available to users; after the change, they were replaced with two "Filter explicit results" settings—" on" and "off". The former and new "on" settings are similar and exclude explicit images from search results, while the new "off" setting still permits explicit images to appear in search results, but users need to enter more specific search requests, and no direct equivalent of the old "off" setting exists because adding additional explicit search terms alters search results. The change brings image search results in line with Google's existing settings for web and video search.[19][20][21]

Some users have stated that the lack of a completely unfiltered option amounts to censorship by Google. A Google spokesperson disagreed, saying that Google is "not censoring any adult content," but "want to show users exactly what they are looking for—but [Google policies] aim not to show sexually-explicit results unless a user is specifically searching for them.".[22]

Online pharmacies

Following a settlement with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ending Google Adwords' advertising of Canadian pharmacies that permitted Americans to access cheaper prescriptions, Google agreed to several compliances and reporting measures to limit the visibility of "rogue pharmacies". Google and other members of the Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies are collaborating to remove illegal pharmacies from search results and participating in "Operation Pangea" with the FDA and Interpol.[23][24]

Search suggestions
See also: Search suggest drop-down list and Criticism of Google § Web search

In January 2010, Google was reported to have stopped providing automatic suggestions for any search beginning with the term "Islam is", while it continued to do so for other major religions. According to Wired.com, a Google spokesperson stated, "This is a bug and we’re working to fix it as quickly as we can."[25] Suggestions for "Islam is" were available later that month. The word "Bilderberg" and the family name "Buchanan" were also reportedly censored in the autocomplete results[26] but were available by February 2010 as well. Nonetheless, Google continues to filter certain words from autocomplete suggestions,[27] describing them as "potentially inappropriate".[28]

The publication 2600: The Hacker Quarterly has compiled a list of words that are restricted by Google Instant.[29] These are terms that the company's Instant Search feature will not search.[30][31] Most terms are often vulgar and derogatory in nature, but some apparently irrelevant searches including "Myleak" are removed.[31]

As of 26 January 2011, Google's Autocomplete feature would not complete certain words such as "BitTorrent," "Torrent," "uTorrent," "Megaupload," and "Rapidshare", and Google actively censored search terms or phrases that its algorithm considered likely constituting spam or intending to manipulate search results.[32]

In September 2012, multiple sources reported that Google had removed "bisexual" from its list of blacklisted terms for Instant Search.[33]

Ungoogleable

In 2013, the Swedish Language Council included the Swedish version of the word ungoogleable (ogooglebar) in its list of new words.[34] It had "defined the term as something that cannot be found with any search engine".[35] Google objected to this definition, wanting it to only refer to Google searches, and the Council removed it in order to avoid a legal confrontation,[36] and accused Google of trying to "control the Swedish language".[37]

Leaked celebrity content
Main article: iCloud celebrity-photo leaks

On 31 August 2014, almost 200 private pictures of various celebrities containing nudity and explicit content were made public on certain websites. Google removed most search results that linked users directly to such content short after.[38]

Australia

In January 2010, Google Australia removed links to satirical website Encyclopedia Dramatica's "Aboriginal" article, citing it as a violation of Australia's Racial Discrimination Act.[39] After the website's domain change in 2011, the article resurfaced in Google Australia's search results.

Canada
Main article: Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc

On 19 June 2014, Google was ordered by the Supreme Court of British Columbia to remove search results that linked to websites of a company called Datalink. The websites in question sell network device technology that Datalink is alleged to have stolen from Equustek Solutions. Google voluntarily removed links from google.ca, the main site used by Canadians, but the court granted a temporary injunction applying to all Google sites across the world.[40] Google argued that Canadian law could not be imposed across the world but was given until June 17, 2014, to comply with the court's ruling.[41]

China
Main article: Google China

Google adhered to the Internet censorship policies of China,[42] enforced by means of filters colloquially known as "The Great Firewall of China," until March 2010. Google.cn search results were filtered to not display any results perceived to be harmful to the People's Republic of China (PRC). Google claimed that some censorship was necessary in order to keep the Chinese government from blocking Google entirely, which had happened in 2002.[43]

Google claimed it did not plan to give the government information about users who searched for blocked content and would inform users that content had been restricted if they attempt to search for it.[44] As of 2009, Google was the only major China-based search engine to explicitly inform the user when search results were blocked or hidden. As of December 2012, Google no longer informs the user of possible censorship for certain queries during a search.[45] The Chinese government had restricted citizens' access to popular search engines such as Altavista, Yahoo!, and Google in the past, though the complete ban has since been lifted. However, the government remains active in filtering Internet content. In October 2005, the Blogger platform and access to the Google cache was made available in mainland China; however, in December 2005, some mainland Chinese Blogger users reported that their access to the site was once again restricted.

In January 2006, Google agreed that China's version of Google, Google.cn, would filter certain keywords given to it by the Chinese government.[46] Google pledged to tell users when search results are censored and said that it would not "maintain any services that involve personal or confidential data, such as Gmail or Blogger, on the mainland".[47] Google said that it does not plan to give the government information about users who search for blocked content and will inform users that content has been restricted if they attempt to search for it. Searchers may encounter a message which states: "In accordance with local laws and policies, some of the results have not been displayed."[44] Google issued a statement saying that "removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission" but that the alternative — being shut down entirely and thereby "providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission."[46] Initially, both the censored Google.cn and the uncensored Chinese-language Google.com were available. In June 2006, however, China blocked Google.com again.[47]

Some Chinese Internet users were critical of Google for assisting the Chinese government in repressing its own citizens, particularly those dissenting against the government and advocating for human rights.[48] Furthermore, Google had been denounced and called hypocritical by Free Media Movement and Reporters Without Borders for agreeing to China's demands while simultaneously fighting the United States government's requests for similar information.[49] Google China had also been condemned by Reporters Without Borders,[49] Human Rights Watch,[50] and Amnesty International.[51]

On 14 February 2006, protesters organized a "mass breakup with Google" whereby users agreed to boycott Google on Valentine's Day to show their disapproval of the Google China policy.[52][53]

In June 2009, Google was ordered by the Chinese government to block various overseas websites, including some with sexually explicit content. Google was criticized by the China Illegal Information Reporting Center (CIIRC) for allowing search results that included content that was sexual in nature, and claimed the company was a dissemination channel for a “huge amount of porn and lewd content”.[54]

On 12 January 2010, in response to an apparent hacking of Google's servers in an attempt to access information about Chinese dissidents, Google announced that “we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all.”[55]

On 22 March 2010, after talks with Chinese authorities failed to reach an agreement, the company redirected its censor-complying Google China service to its Google Hong Kong service, which is outside the jurisdiction of Chinese censorship laws. However, at least as of March 23, 2010, "The Great Firewall" continues to censor search results from the Hong Kong portal, www.google.com.hk (as it does with the US portal, www.google.com) for controversial terms such as "Falun gong" and "the June 4th incident" (Tiananmen Square incident).[56][57][58]

In August 2018, it was revealed that Google was working on a version of its search engine for use in China, which would censor content according to the restrictions placed by the Chinese government. This project was worked on by a small percentage of the company and was codenamed Dragonfly. A number of Google employees expressed their concern about the project, and several resigned.[59][60]

European Union

In July 2014, Google began removing certain search results from its search engines in the European Union in response to requests under the right to be forgotten. Articles whose links were removed, when searching for specific personal names, included a 2007 blog by the BBC journalist Robert Peston about Stanley O'Neal, a former chairman of investment bank Merrill Lynch, being forced out after the bank made huge losses.[61] Peston criticized Google for "...cast[ing him] into oblivion".[62]

The Guardian reported that six of its articles, including three relating to a former Scottish football referee, had been "hidden".[63] Other articles, including one about French office workers using post-it notes and another about a collapsed fraud trial of a solicitor standing for election to the Law Society's ruling body, were affected.[64][65]

Sky News Australia reported that a story about Kelly Osbourne falling ill on the set of Fashion Police in 2013 had been removed.[66][67]

The Oxford Mail reported that its publishers had been notified by Google about the removal of links to the story of a conviction for shoplifting in 2006. The paper said it was not known who had asked Google to remove the search result, but there had been a previous complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) in 2010 concerning its accuracy, claimed that the report was causing "embarrassment", and requested that the story be taken off the paper's website. The paper said two factual amendments were made to the article and the PCC dismissed the complaint.[68][69]

An article about the conversion to Islam of the brother of George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was removed after a request to Google from an unknown person under the right-to-be-forgotten ruling.[70]

The Telegraph reported that links to a report on its website about claims that a former Law Society chief faked complaints against his deputy were hidden.[71][72] The search results for the articles for the same story in the Guardian and The Independent were also removed.[73][74] The Independent reported that its article, together with an article on the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 and one on new trends in sofa design in 1998, had been removed.[75] The Telegraph also reported that links to articles concerning a student's 2008 drink-driving conviction and a 2001 case that resulted in two brothers each receiving nine-month jail terms for affray had been removed.[76]

The Spanish newspaper El Mundo reported that some results were hidden over a 2008 news report[77] of a Spanish Supreme Court ruling involving executives of Riviera Coast Invest who were involved in a mortgage mis-selling scandal.[78]

On 5 July 2014, German news magazine Der Spiegel reported removal of a search result to an article about Scientology.[79][80]

On 19 August 2014, the BBC reported that Google had removed 12 links to stories on BBC News.[81]

Germany and France

On 22 October 2002, a study reported that approximately 113 Internet sites had been removed from the German and French versions of Google.[16] This censorship mainly affected White Nationalist, Nazi, anti-semitic, Islamic extremist websites, and at least one fundamentalist Christian website.[82] Under French and German law, hate speech and Holocaust denial are illegal. In the case of Germany, violent or sex-related sites such as YouPorn and BME that the Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien deems harmful to youth are also censored.

Google has complied with these laws by not including sites containing such material in its search results. However, Google does list the number of excluded results at the bottom of the search result page and links to Lumen (formerly known as Chilling Effects) for explanation.[1]

Sweden

In March 2018, Google delisted a WordPress hosted site from search results in Sweden,[83] following an intense media frenzy targeted against Google, YouTube, and Facebook by the tabloid Expressen and the daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter.[84] The WordPress site lists Swedish Jews in the public sphere, and also agitates against the dominant publishing house Bonnier Group, the owner of both newspapers.

Although perfectly legal in Sweden, the WordPress site was described as anti-semitic.[85] The Bonnier papers argued that Google should not promote such content and above all not at a high rank. Ministers in the Swedish green-left government agreed with this sentiment, and threatened with national and EU regulation unless Google adapt its algorithms and delist contents of ”threats and hate” (hot och hat).[86] Google eventually delisted the site in Sweden due to copyright claims.

Said papers also targeted the YouTube channel Granskning Sverige (Scrutiny Sweden) for its alleged extreme right-wing contents.[87] The channel was described as a "troll factory", where members called authorities, journalists and other public figures, and recut the recorded interviews to make them fit the channel's right-wing extremist world view.[88] The interviews were broadcast against a black backdrop with the channel logotype, and the occasional use of screen dumps from newspaper articles related to the interviews.[89] Google eventually complied with the demands, and closed the channel, citing copyright infringement and violation of terms of agreement.[90]

On April 13, 2018, Google took part in a meeting with the Swedish government, to discuss the search company's role in the media landscape.[91] Minister of Justice, Morgan Johansson (Social Democrats), and Minister of Digitization, Peter Eriksson (Green Party), expressed concerns that “unlawful” and “harmful” content was facilitated by Google, and that “trolls” could have a negative impact on the upcoming Swedish parliamentary election. Google agreed to refine its algorithms, and also hire more staff to make sure “threats and hate" are eliminated from Google search and YouTube videos.[92] Critics have voiced concerns that private international companies are mandated to put censorship into effect to comply with local regulations without guidance from courts, and that free speech is deteriorating at an accelerating rate.[93][94][95]

India

In September 2016, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare revealed that Google had agreed to censor search results and advertising of prenatal sex discernment, which is illegal in India.[96]

Israel

Since 2015, Google removed certain search results that were defamatory in nature[97] from its search engine in Israel following gag orders.[98]

United Kingdom

On 21 September 2006,[15] it was reported that Google had "delisted" Inquisition 21, a website that claims to challenge moral authoritarian and sexually absolutist ideas in the United Kingdom. According to Inquisition 21, Google was acting "in support of a campaign by law enforcement agencies in the US and the UK to suppress emerging information about their involvement in major malpractice", allegedly exposed by their own investigation of any legal action against those who carried out Operation Ore, a far-reaching and much-criticized law enforcement campaign against the viewers of child pornography.[99][100] Google released a press statement suggesting Inquisition 21 had attempted to manipulate search results.[15]`

United States

Google commonly removes search results to comply with Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)-related legal complaints.[101]

In 2002, "in an apparent response to criticism of its handling of a threatening letter from a Church of Scientology lawyer," Google began to make DMCA "takedown" letters public, posting such notices on the Chilling Effects archive (now Lumen), which archives legal threats made against Internet users and Internet sites.[102]

In mid-2016, Google conducted a two-month standoff with writer Dennis Cooper after deleting his Blogger and Gmail accounts without warning or explanation following a single anonymous complaint. The case drew worldwide media attention, and finally resulted in Google returning Cooper's content to him.[103][104]

In mid-2018, Google permanently barred conspiracy theorist Alex Jones from using its subsidiary company YouTube. Jones' channel Infowars responded by "accusing the companies of censorship".[105]

In mid-2019, Google allegedly suspended Tulsi Gabbard's advertisements for her presidential campaign, while the candidate was at the height of public interest.[106] Gabbard sued Google for $50 million in damages.[107]

International
See also: Comparison of web search engines

In June 2017, the Canadian supreme court ruled that Google can be forced to remove search results worldwide. Civil liberties groups including Human Rights Watch, the BC Civil Liberties Association, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation argue that this would set a precedent for Internet censorship. In an appeal, Google argued that the global reach of the order was unnecessary and that it raised concerns over freedom of expression. While the court writes that "[They] have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods", OpenMedia spokesman, David Christopher, warns that "there is great risk that governments and commercial entities will see this ruling as justifying censorship requests that could result in perfectly legal and legitimate content disappearing off the web because of a court order in the opposite corner of the globe".[108][109]

YouTube
See also: Criticism of Google § YouTube

YouTube, a video sharing website and subsidiary of Google, in its Terms of Service, prohibits the posting of videos which violate copyrights or depict pornography, illegal acts, gratuitous violence, hate speech, and what it deems to be misinformation about COVID-19.[110] User-posted videos that violate such terms may be removed and replaced with a message that reads, "This video has been removed due to a violation of our Terms of Service."

General censorship

In September 2007, YouTube blocked the account of Wael Abbas, an Egyptian activist who posted videos of police brutality, voting irregularities and anti-government demonstrations under the Mubarak regime.[111] Shortly afterward, his account was subsequently restored,[112] along with 187 of his videos.[113]

In 2006, Thailand blocked access to YouTube after identifying 20 offensive videos it ordered the site to remove.[1] In 2007, a Turkish judge ordered YouTube to be blocked in the country due to videos insulting Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey (which falls under Article 301 prohibitions on insulting the Turkish nation).[1] In February 2008, the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority banned YouTube in the country, but the manner in which it performed the block accidentally prevented access to the website worldwide for several hours.[114] The ban was lifted after YouTube removed controversial religious comments made by a Dutch government official concerning Islam.[115][116]

In October 2008, YouTube removed a video by Pat Condell titled "Welcome to Saudi Britain"; in response, his fans re-uploaded the video themselves and the National Secular Society wrote to YouTube in protest.[117]

In 2016, YouTube launched a localized Pakistani version of its website for the users in Pakistan in order to censor content considered blasphemous by the Pakistan government as a part of its deal with the latter. As a result, the three-year ban on YouTube by the Pakistan government was subsequently lifted.[118][119]

In July 2017, YouTube began modifying suggested videos to debunk terrorist ideologies.[120] In August 2017, YouTube wrote a blog post explaining a new "limited state" for religious and controversial videos, which would not allow comments, likes, monetization, and suggested videos.[121]

In October 2017, PragerU sued YouTube, alleging violations of their freedom of speech under the First Amendment via YouTube's "arbitrary and capricious use of 'restricted mode' and 'demonetization' viewer restriction filters" to suppress their content. A U.S. district appeals court threw out the suit in February 2020, stating that despite "[its] ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform", YouTube was still considered a private platform (the First Amendment only applies to state actors).[122]

In December 2017, what YouTubers referred to as the "AdPocalypse" took place, with YouTube's automated content policing tool began demonetizing content that ran afoul of the company's very-broad "Not Advertiser-Friendly" category.[123] The following April, numerous firearm-related channels began encountering additional policing by YouTube when new rules restricting videos "that facilitate private gun sales or link to websites that sell guns" were enacted.[123] As a result, popular firearms vlogger Hickok45's account was deleted (and subsequently reinstated after an outcry).[124]

In March 2018, The Atlantic found that YouTube had delisted a video where journalist Daniel Lombroso reported a speech by white nationalist Richard B. Spencer at the 2016 annual conference of the National Policy Institute, where they celebrated Donald Trump's win at the presidential election.[125] YouTube relisted the video after The Atlantic sent a complaint.

In June 2019, YouTube updated its hate speech policy to prohibit hateful and supremacist work, and limit the spread of violent extremist content online. The policy extends to content that justifies discrimination, segregation, or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation, or veteran status. It covers videos that, for example, include Nazi ideology, Holocaust denial, Sandy Hook conspiracy theories, or flat Earth theories. The policy also aims at reducing borderline content and harmful misinformation, such as videos promoting phony miracle cures for serious illnesses.[126]

In February 2020, YouTube reportedly began censoring any content related to the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) by removal or demonetization of the channel, citing the "sensitive topics" advertiser-friendly content guideline on Twitter.[127][128]

In 2020, Republican Senator Rand Paul criticized YouTube for removing a video of his floor speech which named the alleged Ukraine whistleblower.[129]

At least since October 2019, YouTube has been automatically deleting any comments that contain the Chinese terms for "50 Cent Party" (五毛党) and its shortened version "50 Cent" (五毛). They have also been deleting any comments referring to the Chinese Communist Party as "bandits" (共匪). In May 2020, YouTube made a statement to The Verge that these deletions were made "in error".[130][131]

In October 2020, PewDiePie was allegedly shadow banned by YouTube, which led to his channel and videos becoming unavailable on search results. However, YouTube denied shadow banning him, although the human review was restricted due to COVID-19 pandemic. YouTube was criticized by PewDiePie himself, his fans, other YouTubers, and netizens over this.[132][133]

Advertiser-friendly content

YouTube policies restrict certain forms of content from being included in videos being monetized with advertising, including strong violence, language, sexual content, and "controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to wars, political conflicts, natural disasters, and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown", unless the content is "usually newsworthy or comedic and the creator's intent is to inform or entertain".[134]

In August 2016, YouTube introduced a new system to notify users of violations of the "advertiser-friendly content" rules, and allow them to appeal. Following its introduction, many prominent YouTube users began to accuse the site of engaging in de facto censorship, arbitrarily disabling monetization on videos discussing various topics such as skincare, politics, and LGBT history. Philip DeFranco argued that not being able to earn money from a video was "censorship by a different name", while Vlogbrothers similarly pointed out that YouTube had flagged both "Zaatari: thoughts from a refugee camp" and "Vegetables that look like penises" (although the flagging on the former was eventually overturned).[134] The hashtag "#YouTubeIsOverParty" was prominently used on Twitter as a means of discussing the controversy. A YouTube spokesperson stated that "[w]hile [their] policy of demonetizing videos due to advertiser-friendly concerns hasn't changed, [they've] recently improved the notification and appeal process to ensure better communication to [their] creators."[135][136][137]

In March 2017, a number of major advertisers and prominent companies began to pull their advertising campaigns from YouTube over concerns that their ads were appearing on objectionable and/or extremist content, in what the YouTube community began referring to as a "boycott".[138][139] YouTube personality PewDiePie described these boycotts as an "adpocalypse", noting that his video revenue had fallen to the point that he was generating more revenue from YouTube Red subscription profit sharing (which is divided based on views by subscribers) than advertising.[140] On 6 April 2017, YouTube announced planned changes to its Partner Program, restricting new membership to vetted channels with a total of at least 10,000 video views. YouTube stated that the changes were made in order to "ensure revenue only flows to creators who are playing by the rules".[141]

Censorship of sexual content in Restricted Mode

In March 2017, the "Restricted Mode" feature was criticized by YouTube's LGBT community for filtering videos that discuss issues of human sexuality and sexual and gender identity, even when there is no explicit references to sexual intercourse or otherwise inappropriate content.[142][134][143] Rapper Mykki Blanco told The Guardian that such restrictions are used to make LGBT vloggers feel "policed and demeaned" and "sends a clear homophobic message that the fact that my video displays unapologetic queer imagery means it's slapped with an 'age restriction', while other cis, overly sexualised heteronormative work" remain uncensored.[143] Musicians Tegan and Sara similarly argued that LGBT people "shouldn't be restricted", after acknowledging that the mode had censored several of their music videos.[144]

YouTube later stated that a technical error on Restricted Mode wrongfully impacted "hundreds of thousands" LGBT-related videos.[145]

False positives

In February 2019, automated filters accidentally flagged several channels with videos discussing the AR mobile game Pokémon Go and the massively multiplayer online game Club Penguin for containing prohibited sexual content, as some of their videos contained references to "CP" in their title. In Pokémon Go, "CP" is an abbreviation of "Combat Power"—a level system in the game, and "CP" is an abbreviation of Club Penguin, but it was believed that YouTube's filters had accidentally interpreted it as referring to child pornography. The affected channels were restored, and YouTube apologized for the inconvenience.[146][147]

In August 2019, YouTube mistakenly took down robot fighting videos for violating its policies against animal cruelty.[148]

2007 anti-censorship shareholder initiative

On 10 May 2007, shareholders of Google voted down an anti-censorship proposal for the company. The text of the failed proposal submitted by the New York City comptroller's office, which controls a significant number of shares on behalf of retirement funds, stated that:

  1. Data that can identify individual users should not be hosted in Internet-restricting countries, where political speech can be treated as a crime by the legal system.
  2. The company will not engage in pro-active censorship.
  3. The company will use all legal means to resist demands for censorship. The company will only comply with such demands if required to do so through legally binding procedures.
  4. Users will be clearly informed when the company has acceded to legally binding government requests to filter or otherwise censor content that the user is trying to access.
  5. Users should be informed about the company's data retention practices and the ways in which their data is shared with third parties.
  6. The company will document all cases where legally-binding censorship requests have been complied with, and that information will be publicly available.

David Drummond, senior vice president for corporate development, said "Pulling out of China, shutting down Google.cn, is just not the right thing to do at this point... but that's exactly what this proposal would do."[149]

CEO Eric Schmidt and founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal. Together they hold 66.2 percent of Google's total shareholder voting power, meaning that they could themselves have declined the anti-censorship proposal.[150]

See also

References
  1. Rosen, Jeffrey (November 30, 2008). "Google's Gatekeepers". The New York Times. Retrieved October 15, 2016.
  2. Sonne, Paul (June 18, 2012). "Google's Censorship Juggle". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-07-31. Retrieved January 25, 2018.
  3. "Google Somewhat Lifts Oceana Ad Ban". webpronews.com. May 17, 2004. Archived from the original on 2009-01-30. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
  4. "Google AdSenseTM Online Standard Terms and Conditions". Google AdSense. Retrieved May 9, 2007.
  5. Hayley Tsukayama (April 28, 2014). "Google removes "deceptive" pregnancy center ads". Washington Post. Retrieved August 29, 2017.
  6. "Google Reportedly Removes Navalny Ad After Russian Government Complains". Moscow: Radio Liberty.
  7. "Google accused of airbrushing Katrina history". NBS News. Associated Press. March 30, 2007. Retrieved September 26, 2013.
  8. "Post-Katrina images of New Orleans on Google Maps". September 2, 2005.
  9. "About the New Orleans imagery in Google Maps and Earth". April 2, 2007.
  10. "Google Earth - Hurricane Katrina Imagery". web.archive.org. 2007-06-08. Retrieved 2021-01-12.
  11. Zeman, Eric (March 7, 2008). "Google Caves To Pentagon Wishes". Information Week.
  12. "Image Acceptance & Privacy Policies", Goggle Inc. Retrieved 2014-07-4.
  13. "German foreign minister joins criticism of Google's mapping program", Catherine Bolsover, Deutsche Welle, August 14, 2010. Retrieved August 12, 2014.
  14. "Keyword: Google and the DMCA" Archived 2008-06-20 at the Wayback Machine, Chilling Effects Clearinghouse
  15. Sherriff, Lucy (September 21, 2006). "Google erases Operation Ore campaign site". The Register.
  16. Zittrain, Jonathan; Edelman, Benjamin. "Localized Google search result exclusions: Statement of issues and call for data." Harvard Law School: Berkman Center for Internet & Society. October 22, 2002.
  17. Matyszczyk, Chris (January 31, 2010). "Google censors 'Lolita' but not 'bestiallity'". CNET News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2017. Retrieved 2 March 2017.
  18. Jura (18 April 2010). "Google censors lolicon sites". Anime Gerad. Archived from the original on 22 April 2010. Retrieved 2 March 2017.
  19. Casey Newton (December 12, 2012). "Google tweaks image search to make porn harder to find". CNET News. Retrieved February 3, 2013.
  20. Matthew Panzarino (December 12, 2012). "Google tweaks image search algorithm and SafeSearch option to show less explicit content". TNW. Retrieved February 3, 2013.
  21. Josh Wolford (December 16, 2012). "Google No Longer Allows You to Disable SafeSearch, and That Makes Google Search Worse". Web Pro News. Retrieved February 3, 2013.
  22. Whittaker, Zack (December 12, 2012). "Google.com now 'censors' explicit content from image searches". ZDNet. Retrieved June 14, 2013.
  23. Sophie Novack (March 5, 2014). "How Google Is Trying to Protect Your Drug Supply". NationalJournal.
  24. "Pharmaceutical Crime/Operations". Interpol. Archived from the original on 2016-06-13. Retrieved 2014-03-06.
  25. Singel, Ryan (March 28, 2013). "Is Google Censoring Islam Suggestions? | Wired Business". Wired.com. Retrieved June 15, 2013.
  26. "Google Discussiegroepen". Retrieved June 15, 2013.
  27. "Sex, Violence, and Autocomplete Algorithms: What words do Bing and Google censor from their suggestions?", Nicholas Diakopoulos, Future Tense (Slate), August 2, 2013. Retrieved December 3, 2013.
  28. "Google Instant doesn't work", Google Search Help. Retrieved December 3, 2013.
  29. "Google Blacklist – Words That Google Instant Doesn't Like". 2600.com. Retrieved August 4, 2012.
  30. Samuel Axon, Mashable (September 29, 2010). "Which words does Google Instant blacklist?". CNN. Retrieved August 4, 2012.
  31. "Google Instant Censorship: The Strangest Terms Blacklisted By Google". The Huffington Post. September 29, 2010. Retrieved August 4, 2012.
  32. "Google Starts Censoring BitTorrent, RapidShare and More", Torrent Freak, January 26, 2011
  33. "Google Removes 'Bisexual' From Its List of Dirty Words", Michelle Garcia, Advocate.com, September 11, 2012. Retrieved March 14, 2014.
  34. Fanning, Sean (March 26, 2013). "Google gets ungoogleable off Sweden's new word list". BBC News. BBC. Retrieved April 5, 2013.
  35. "Who, What, Why: What is 'ungoogleable'?". BBC News. 2013-03-27. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
  36. Williams, Rob (March 26, 2013). "'Ungoogleable' removed from list of Swedish words after row over definition with Google: California based search engine giant asked Swedish to amend definition". The Independent. London. Retrieved April 5, 2013.
  37. Irvine, Chris (March 25, 2013). "Sweden rows with Google over term 'ungoogleable'". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved April 5, 2013.
  38. Mohammed, Sagal (September 1, 2014). "J-Law's pictures to be displayed at an art gallery". Glamour Magazine UK. New York City: Condé Nast. Retrieved September 6, 2014.
  39. Riley, Duncan (January 14, 2010), Aus Media Gets Encyclopedia Dramatica Story Wrong, Only Some Search Links Removed, The Inquisitr, retrieved February 12, 2014.
  40. "2014 BCSC 1063 Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack". www.bccourts.ca.
  41. "This company will no longer show up on Google’s search results after court ruling", Business ETC, June 19, 2014.
  42. "Google censors itself for China". BBC News. January 25, 2006. Retrieved January 31, 2008.
  43. The Great Wall: China Against the World, 1000 BC–AD 2000 Archived March 14, 2015, at the Wayback Machine, Julia Lovell, Grove/Atlantic, March 2007, ISBN 978-0-8021-4297-9
  44. "Google move 'black day' for China." BBC News. January 25, 2006.
  45. "Google quietly removed search warning message in China in early December 2012." Engadget. January 4, 2013
  46. Google to censor itself in China, CNN (January 26, 2006).
  47. Justine Lau, A history of Google in China, Financial Times (July 9, 2010).
  48. "Google: Stop participating in China's Propaganda", Students for a Free Tibet, Yahoo! Groups, February 1, 2006
  49. AFX News (January 25, 2006). "Google bows to Chinese censorship with new search site". Forbes. Archived from the original on November 21, 2008.
  50. "3. Google, Inc." in Race to the Bottom': Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship, Part IV. How Multinational Internet Companies assist Government Censorship in China, Human Rights Watch, Vol. 18 No. 8(C), August 2006
  51. "Google does not censor: take action to defend freedom of information", Amnesty International, May 10, 2006
  52. Fung, Amanda. "Midtown protest targets Google's China site Archived 2006-06-27 at the Wayback Machine." New York Business. February 14, 2006.
  53. NO LUV 4 Google Website.
  54. "Beijing blocks Google search results over pornography row" Archived 2009-06-24 at the Wayback Machine, Aharon Etengoff, TG Daily (Velum Media), 19 June 2009. Retrieved 27 September 2013.
  55. Official Google Blog. "A new approach to China" January 12, 2010
  56. Official Google Blog. "A new approach to China: an update" March 22, 2010
  57. "BREAKING: Google Pulls Search Engine Out Of China". Business Insider. March 22, 2010. Retrieved March 22, 2010.
  58. "Google's Chinese Site Redirects to Hong Kong Version". Bloomberg News. March 22, 2010. Retrieved March 22, 2010.
  59. Gallagher, Ryan (16 August 2018). "Google Staff Tell Bosses China Censorship is "Moral and Ethical" Crisis". The Intercept. Retrieved 16 August 2018.
  60. O'Donovan, Caroline (September 13, 2018). "Google Employees Are Quitting Over Dragonfly, The Company's Search Project For China". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved September 15, 2018.
  61. Robert Peston (29 October 2007). "Peston's Picks:Merrill's Mess". BBC News. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  62. Robert Peston (2 July 2014). "Why has Google cast me into oblivion ?". BBC News. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  63. James Ball (2 July 2014). "EU's right to be forgotten:Guardian articles have been hidden". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  64. Jon Healey (30 August 2011). "Paris's Post-it wars". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  65. Clare Dyer (28 June 2002). "Accused solicitor stands for office". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  66. "Kelly Osbourne Leaves Hospital After Seizure", Sky News via Yahoo! News, 13 March 2013.
  67. "Google Starts Erasing Disputed Search Results", Sky News, 3 July 2014.
  68. "Archaeology specialist tried to steal from shop". The Oxford Mail. 5 May 2006. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  69. Jason Collie (3 July 2014). "Google removes first Oxford story about Robert Daniels-Dwyer's conviction for shoplifting under Right to be Forgotten ruling". The Oxford Mail. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  70. Matthew Holehouse; Rhiannon Williams (4 July 2014). "Google's right to be forgotten hides Islamic marriage of Osborne's brother". The Telegraph. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  71. Sally Pook (8 August 2003). "Law Society chief 'faked claims against Asian deputy'". The Telegraph. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  72. Rhiannon Williams (4 July 2014). "Google restores links to Telegraph's deleted articles". The Telegraph. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  73. Robert Verkaik (13 July 1999). "'Foul-mouthed' new head of Law Society". The Independent. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  74. Alex Aldridge (3 July 2014). "'Right to be forgotten' ruling sees article about 'foul-mouthed ex Law Society President removed from Google". Legal Cheek. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  75. James Vincent (3 July 2014). "Critics outraged as Google removes search results about top UK lawyer and US banker". The Independent. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  76. Matthew Sparkes (18 August 2014). "The EU's 'Right to be Forgotten': Google removes link to Telegraph story about drunk 'Italian Job' stunt". The Telegraph. Retrieved 18 August 2014.
  77. "Prisión bajo fianza para dos directivos de Riviera" ["Prison on bail for two directors of Riviera"] (in Spanish), El Mundo, 16 September 2008. English translation.
  78. "ELMUNDO.es recibe su primer aviso de eliminación de resultados en Google por el 'derecho al olvido' " ["ELMUNDO.es receive your first notice of removal results in Google for the 'right to be forgotten' "] (in Spanish), Pablo Romero, El Mundo, 16 July 2014. English translation.
  79. "Recht auf Vergessen: Google entfernt SPIEGEL-Artikel aus Suchergebnissen" [Right to be forgotten: Google removed SPIEGEL article from search results] (in German), Ole Reißmann, Spiegel Online, 4 July 2014. English translation. Retrieved 12 August 2014.
  80. "Wie tausend Metastasen" [Like a thousand metastases] (in German), Der Spiegel, 15 May 1995. English translation. Retrieved 14 August 2014.
  81. "Google removes 12 BBC News links in 'right to be forgotten' ", Edwin Lane, BBC News, 19 August 2014.
  82. Error page, Google France, (in French), "Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (site:jesus-is-lord.com). En réponse à une demande légale adressée à Google, nous avons retiré 391 résultat(s) de cette page. Si vous souhaitez en savoir plus sur cette demande, vous pouvez consulter le site ChillingEffects.org." ("No documents match the specified search (site: jesus-is-lord.com). In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 391 result(s) from this page. If you want to know more about this application, you can consult the ChillingEffects.org site."). Retrieved 27 September 2013.
  83. "Local Law Complaint to Google". Lumen. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
  84. "Antisemitisk lista på svenska judar sprids via Google". Dagens Nyheter. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
  85. "Google stoppar hatlista – men allt ligger kvar på Wordpress". Expressen. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
  86. "Peter Eriksson öppnar för lagstiftning mot nätjättarna". Expressen. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
  87. "Kravet från medierna: Google måste ta ansvar". Expressen. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
  88. "Här är allt du vil veta om trollfabriken Granskning Sverige". Nyheter24. Retrieved 16 July 2019.
  89. "Granskning Sverige". Granskning Sverige. Archived from the original on 14 April 2018. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
  90. "Google stänger ner Granskning Sveriges huvudkonto på Youtube". Expressen. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
  91. "Regeringen i möte med internetgiganter och Tidningsutgivarna". Sveriges Television. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
  92. "Googles löfte: Ta ett större ansvar mot hot och hat". Dagens Nyheter. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
  93. "Boström: Hatet mot Google". Göteborgs-Posten. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
  94. "Rensa nätet försiktigt". Ystads Allehanda. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
  95. "Publicistiskt haveri". Affärsvärlden. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
  96. "Google, Microsoft, Yahoo Will Block Indian Gender-Selection Ads". Bloomberg. Retrieved 19 September 2016.
  97. "Ami Savir v. Google". Global Freedom of Expression. Retrieved 2021-01-13.
  98. Articles in HaAyin HaShevi'it (in Hebrew): , , , .
  99. "Contact and about", Inquisition 21st century, 8 May 2009. Retrieved 27 September 2013.
  100. "Chapter 16. Our raid on Texas", Inquisition 21st century, 11 March 2011. Retrieved 27 September 2013.
  101. "Lumen :: Topics :: Lumen". www.lumendatabase.org. Archived from the original on June 20, 2008.
  102. Marti, Don (April 12, 2002). "Google Begins Making DMCA Takedowns Public". Linux Journal.
  103. Gay, Roxane (July 29, 2016). "The Blog That Disappeared". The New York Times. New York City: New York Times Company. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved August 28, 2016.
  104. Sidahmed, Mazin (July 14, 2016). "Dennis Cooper fears censorship as Google erases blog without warning". The Guardian. Lon don, England: Guardian Media Group. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved August 28, 2016.
  105. Chappell, Bill (August 6, 2018). "YouTube, Apple and Facebook Ban Infowars, Which Decries 'Mega Purge'". NPR. Retrieved May 3, 2019.
  106. Wu, Nicholas (July 25, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard sues Google, claims 'election interference' over suspension of ad account". USA Today. Retrieved 2019-12-04.
  107. Wakabayashi, Daisuke (July 25, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Sues Google for $50 Million". The New York Times. New York City: New York Times Company. Retrieved December 4, 2019.
  108. "Google can be forced to pull results globally, Canada supreme court rules". The Guardian. London, England: Guardian Media Group. Reuters. 28 June 2017. Retrieved 29 June 2017.
  109. Deahl, Dani (June 28, 2017). "Canada's Supreme Court rules Google must block certain search results worldwide". The Verge. New York City: Vox Media. Retrieved June 29, 2017.
  110. "YouTube Community Guidelines". YouTube. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
  111. "YouTube shuts down Egyptian anti-torture activist's account". CNN. November 29, 2007.
  112. Johnston, Cynthia (December 3, 2007). "YouTube restores account of Egypt anti-torture blogger". Reuters.
  113. Diehl, Jackson (December 17, 2007). "Egypt's YouTube Democrats". The Washington Post.
  114. McCullagh, Declan. "How Pakistan knocked YouTube offline (and how to make sure it never happens again)". CNET. Retrieved 2019-02-20.
  115. "Pakistan Drops YouTube Ban". CBS News.
  116. "Pakistan welcomes back YouTube". 26 February 2008.
  117. Beckford, Martin (October 3, 2008). "YouTube censors comedian's anti-Sharia video called 'Welcome to Saudi Britain'". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved April 14, 2010.
  118. Network, The Dawn/Asia News. "YouTube back in Pakistan with vague transparency". technology.inquirer.net. Retrieved 2016-03-01.
  119. "What will Pakistanis see on YouTube?". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 2016-03-01.
  120. Hatmaker, Taylor. "YouTube launches its counter-terrorism experiment for would-be ISIS recruits". TechCrunch. Retrieved 16 September 2017.
  121. Brown, Jennings. "YouTube Has a New Naughty Corner for Controversial Religious and Supremacist Videos". Gizmodo. Retrieved 16 September 2017.
  122. Brodkin, Jon (2020-02-26). "First Amendment doesn't apply on YouTube; judges reject PragerU lawsuit". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2020-02-26.
  123. Turton, William. "Gun vloggers are flipping out at YouTube's crackdown on their videos". Vice News. Retrieved 26 December 2020.
  124. staff (January 8, 2016). "Video: Hickok45 Explains Why He Was Banned from YouTube". Outdoor Hub. Retrieved 2 January 2021.
  125. YouTube Removes the 'Hail, Trump' Video From Search - Robinson Meyer, The Atlantic, 20 March 2018
  126. "Our ongoing work to tackle hate". Official YouTube Blog. 5 June 2019. Retrieved 3 July 2019.
  127. "TeamYouTube on Twitter". Twitter. Retrieved 16 March 2020.
  128. "YouTube reportedly censors videos about novel coronavirus by removal or demonetization, company says they fall under "sensitive topics"". Retrieved 16 March 2020.
  129. Tobin, Ben (2020-02-13). "YouTube censors Rand Paul by removing Trump impeachment question, and he's not happy". The Courier-Journal. Louisville KY. Retrieved 2020-05-06.
  130. Everington, Keoni (2020-05-14). "YouTube automatically deletes Chinese epithet 'communist bandit': YouTube bans term used during Taiwan's martial law era to describe communist Chinese". Taiwan News.
  131. Vincent, James. "YouTube is deleting comments with two phrases that insult China's Communist Party". The Verge.
  132. Periwal, Saahil (October 23, 2020). "PewDiePie allegedly got shadowbanned on YouTube, and the internet is not happy". Sportskeeda.
  133. Wynne, Kelly (October 22, 2020). "YouTube Allegedly Shadowbanned Its Biggest Creator PewDiePie and People Aren't Happy". Newsweek.
  134. Robertson, Adi (September 1, 2016). "Why is YouTube being accused of censoring vloggers?". The Verge. Retrieved March 19, 2017.
  135. "YouTubers protest 'advertiser friendly' policy". USA Today. Retrieved September 2, 2016.
  136. "A bunch of famous YouTubers are furious at YouTube right now – here's why". Business Insider. Retrieved September 2, 2016.
  137. "Pause the #YouTubeIsOverParty: YouTube isn't pulling more ads from stars' videos". CNET. Retrieved September 2, 2016.
  138. "Google Ad Crisis Spreads as Biggest Marketers Halt Spending". Bloomberg. Retrieved March 23, 2017.
  139. "YouTube: UK government suspends ads amid extremism concerns". BBC News. Retrieved March 23, 2017.
  140. "New YouTube Rules Restrict Ads to Vetted Channels as PewDiePie Declares The 'Adpocalypse'". Advertising Age. Retrieved April 9, 2017.
  141. "YouTube will no longer allow creators to make money until they reach 10,000 views". The Verge. Vox Media. Retrieved April 6, 2017.
  142. Hernandez, Patricia (September 1, 2016). "YouTubers Are Freaking Out About Money and 'Censorship'". Kotaku. Retrieved March 19, 2017.
  143. Taylor, Trey (December 16, 2016). "Battle of the bulge: how streaming censorship is affecting queer musicians". The Guardian. Retrieved March 19, 2017.
  144. The Guardian. "YouTube changes restrictions on gay-themed content following outcry". The Guardian. The Guardian. Retrieved March 31, 2017.
  145. Duffy, Nick (April 22, 2017). "YouTube tech error censored 'hundreds of thousands' of LGBT videos". PinkNews. Retrieved April 24, 2017.
  146. Gerken, Tom (2019-02-18). "YouTube in Pokemon child abuse images row". Retrieved 2019-02-20.
  147. Frank, Allegra (2019-02-18). "Huge Pokémon Go YouTube channels deleted, restored after being mistaken for child pornography". Polygon. Retrieved 2019-02-20.
  148. McKay, Tom (2019-08-21). "YouTube Concedes Robot Fight Videos Are Not Actually Animal Cruelty After Removing Them by Mistake". Gizmodo. Retrieved 2019-08-21.
  149. Larkin, Erik (2007-05-10). "Google Shareholders Vote Against Anti-Censorship Proposal". PC World.
  150. PC World:Google Asks Shareholders to Permit Censorship
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.