A bit about YouTube kowtowing to easy censorship

One of my favorite YouTube video bloggers is c0nc0rdance. He posts regularly on scientific topics, ranging from creationism to non-nutritive sweeteners to homeopathy. He approaches all his topics meticulously, often providing something of a scientific literature review for the masses on key topics. His scientific rationalism and opposition to creationism, however, paint a bulls-eye on his videos, and YouTube is all too happy to provide the tools with which to attack. Here is c0nc0rdance's video summary of his recent trials and tribulations. I've read similar accounts on other sites, including a ContentID copyright ownership notice filed against an individual who recorded a walk outdoors, with the only music being bird songs, and posted it to YouTube.

Now, there are many folks who, for various reasons, disagree with c0nc0rdance's posts. This turns out, however, to be a little beside the point. The point is that Google, in an effort to avoid lawsuits like the ongoing Viacom one and preserve the Safe Harbor component of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, has made it too easy to censor the content of others on YouTube with little recourse on the part of the censored. Now, from the perspective of a legitimate copyright holder or licenser, YouTube's DMCA take-down and ContentID tools help either remove infringing content or at least attempt to monetize that content. The critical problem is the lack of those who use these tools, including the "Flag as inappropriate" tools made available to all those who watch content on YouTube, is that they contain barely a modicum of due process and assume the individual being targeted is guilty until the accuser gives up. There is an appeal process, but the appeal process can be countered by the accuser and the accuser's determination generally stands.

Google is not an agent of the law, so due process is certainly not required of it. Still, their corporate mantra is to "do no evil". Even taken with a grain of salt, the lack of any meaningful review in these various censorship tools or the lack of requirement that claimants actually provide evidence is problematic. Speaking up for what you believe, especially in the face of concerted efforts to silence you, takes a lot of guts. Allowing such easy means of shutting down opposing views, even under the guise of legitimate copyright enforcement, is awfully stifling of free speech and open discourse.

So, what can be done about this? I propose a solution. This would be a relatively easy thing for YouTube to implement, and it is not a solution for all things. Those who wish to voice their opinions anonymously would not be helped, but for folks like c0nc0rdance, this could make all the difference. I propose that YouTube have a special registration option for Approved Accounts. Approved Accounts would be those for which the account holder has provided his or her name and personal or business information, including address, with some form of documentation for confirmation. Where an Approved Account has been hit with some form of censorship/copyright request, YouTube could allow an appeal to automatically go in favor of the poster of the video. Here is where it gets tricky. In the case of a copyright holder filing notice, if they are convinced their copyrights are being infringed, they could ask YouTube to provide the name and address of the Approved Account holder who posted the video, but only if they are registered with YouTube and are willing to share their own legal contact information. The poster of the video would be notified that their information was provided to a claimant and the claimant's information would be provided in return. At that point it would be up to the claimant to use existing legal tools to pursue infringement.

In the case of the publicly available "flag as inappropriate" button, the Approved Account process would not be much help. The only way to fix abuse of this feature is for YouTube and Google to make a concerted effort to review material carefully and with an eye toward context. An informational video about breast feeding, mammograms, or testicular cancer may show parts of the human anatomy that are typically regarded as inappropriate public content, but the context is such that the display is not scurrilous in the least, and therefore not broadly objectionable.

If YouTube continues to allow blatant abuse of the censorship tools it makes available, without appropriate review of the claims, YouTube will rapidly degenerate further and send those with legitimate original content and political and social views elsewhere. YouTube is already a service saturated with naval gazing and empty content. It cannot continue to drive away those who have a voice and need an outlet.