Google Faces Sanctions Dilemma With Pro-Russia YouTube Channels (bloomberg.com) 122
With sanctions on Russia ramping up following its invasion of Ukraine, Google's YouTube is under pressure to remove or cut commercial ties with some of its most prolific pro-Russian channels. From a report: The online video giant has a massive reach in Russia and has long been a popular platform for both government critics and state-backed media. But now officials in the U.S., the U.K. and Europe are discussing restrictions that could target groups and people with huge audiences on the platform, creating a dilemma for the Alphabet-owned business. European Union sanctions, for instance, would target Vladimir Solovyov, a TV and radio journalist behind a YouTube channel with more than 1 million subscribers. An EU report issued on Wednesday said that "Solovyov is known for his extremely hostile attitude toward Ukraine and praise of the Russian government." A four-hour video livestream published overnight on his YouTube channel about the Russian military attacks had over 2.7 million views within its first nine hours. That video also ran advertisements, at least for U.S. viewers.
This will show what Google likes most ... (Score:5, Insightful)
money or human rights.
Re:This will show what Google likes most ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Will they remove Tucker Carlson's episode where he said, "Ukraine is not a democracy, it's a State Department client state"?
Just asking so that I know how much popcorn to buy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
According to my father all this is deepfake stuff using AI voice generated by the "demonrats".
He fucking watched it with his own eyes on FuckNews when it happened...and now says it's fake.
Re: (Score:2)
According to my father all this is deepfake stuff using AI voice generated by the "demonrats".
He fucking watched it with his own eyes on FuckNews when it happened...and now says it's fake.
Apparently needs to be quoted against trolls with mod points, but it's still sad. People believe what they want to believe, and then they damn the truth if it's wrong! (Not all people, but many.)
Re: (Score:3)
If Tucker Carlson fans left YT in huff, it would clean up the comments section tremendously.
Re: (Score:2)
But keyboard sales would plummet!
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is one of these men is under international sanctions and the other is not... That you can't understand the difference is a little worrying.
Re: (Score:2)
"In democracy it's your vote in elections that counts; In feudalism it's your count that votes" --Jallberg
There's a more likely intermediate stage (Score:3)
money or human rights.
If EU/US/GB don't explicitly sanction his broadcasts then they'll probably just demonetise his channel. This will result in a sort of partial shadowban as they don't promote demonetised channels in their algorithm. Their choice there is pretty much money or jail, they can't pay him or it is jail time for some luckless Youtube executive. Whether also drop the channel is then a more interesting question, if they do then it will be for something like disinformation and the decision will come from the very top
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Such as burning books and prohibiting certain subjects being taught in schools, right?
Re:This will show what Google likes most ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The state is will always use schools as a propaganda arm whoever happens to be in charge.
Um, no. One group tries to, and imagines all the others must be doing the same.
The fight should be end public education, but keep the requirement for K-12 for all persons. Privatize all schools and ensure universal vouchers are available.
That's a really good idea if you're seeking to foment division and inequality.
Re: (Score:2)
The fight should be end public education, but keep the requirement for K-12 for all persons. Privatize all schools and ensure universal vouchers are available
Way to go, let's completely ignore how such a thing HAS and IS abused in the US. This might work if we somehow just erased the last hundred years of social relations in this US. Frankly, no one trusts such a system, at least for now. Maybe over time (it IS improving), and perhaps we do need to do it and just consign certain parts of the country to permanent failures and stop trying to prop them up (to be partisan as fuck, plenty of rural places simply don't deserve any help and should be left to die instead
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, I've said it before and will say it again, "never go full retard." B/c if there's anything that's a bad idea, it's make a broken system even more broken. That's like saying if we make war horrible enough, people will stop fighting wars. A sentiment that's been expressed multiple times throughout history(see crossbows, repeating firearms, nuclear weapons
Re: (Score:2)
Can't have our kids exposed to naked cartoon mice teaching about recent history that is soon to be repeated.
Public education was one of the greatest achievements in the world, and int he US. It's a major step backwards to dismantle it for a for-profit system that teaches politicized ideologies (creationism, pro-confederate, etc). A private voucher for all citizens and residents is likely more expensive for the taxpayer overall because the private schools will demand a profit. The voucher demand is
Re: (Score:2)
"Not sure if troll or moron"
No dude, the right answer is to make all education public, free, and subject to non-interference by all parties. This means:
- No book deals
- No tech deals (If a school wants chromebooks or iPads, it gets to decide, and can not be incentivized by the one selling them.)
- The local government (eg the city/county) pays for the school and it's entire staff. The government does not get any say in who the school hires, and the state/country gets no say in the curriculum. The only accoun
Re: (Score:2)
The only accountability aspect comes from the actual accreditation.
And the accreditation board is a subset of the teacher's unions. It could go no other way.
Out in the real world, people are answerable to those that pay their salaries.
Re: (Score:3)
We never had slaves, the confederates were heroes fighting against the oppression from the yankee running dogs, separate but equal was a great idea that was working until the feds got involved, and you're not allowed to think about racism because it doesn't exist but you can shout about reverse racism all you want. Did I miss some ideas that people want to teach?
Sure, I knew we'd repeat the 70s all over again, but to have the southern style 50s back in vogue was a suprise.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot about evolution being a lie taught by godless heathens to steal God's glory.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I got an anti-evolution booklet, nice and glossy, from my grandmother once. From Armstrong Church, a goofball of a guy and a goofball sect. It highly interested me in biology and kind of had the opposite effect on me because it was transparently biased, unscientific, and badly written, but I found the odd creatures fascinating like the platypus and lungfish that were "impossible" to have evolved and must be a perfect design instead from a perfect creator.
Later after college, I went to a "creatio
Re: (Score:2)
That was actually the inspiration behind the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The creationists made such an effort to not be too blatant about the fact that they had a particular creator in mind when they talked about "scientific creationism" that they left a Spaghetti Monster sized loophole.
Re: (Score:2)
you're not allowed to think about racism because it doesn't exist but you can shout about reverse racism all you want
That bubble must be really cozy inside.
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly enough, the teaching of various religions is not prohibited. It would provide students an historical look at how those religions came about and how stories which existed before those religions existed were integrated into those religions.
It is the teaching of one religion from all others which is prohibited.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that people demanding school prayer want prayers from just one subset of one religion. They most certainly do not want school children bowing towards Mecca. I kid you not, I drove past a mosque in my small home town with my mother and she said "they shouldn't allow that!" Somehow, the idea of forbidding a religion seemed ok to her, despite her simultaneously advocating for freedom of religion all her life. The propaganda going around is that some religions don't really count as real religions.
Fre
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is not the information that google is providing, it is the fact of where does that ad revenue money go.
The abandoned do no evil sometime ago (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really care about the profits, I just want people to suffer -- Gozer the Gozerian
Re: (Score:2)
I find that much worse because it's never personal, it's just business.
I find it much better. It's like expecting a tiger to be moral. It's a tiger. It will eat you. Not because it's evil, or amoral, but because it's hungry. A corporation will maximize profits, not because it's amoral, but because that's its raison d'être.
Once you know that, you create regulations and laws (like you said). Then we don't have to wonder if Google will do the right thing, or when, or how far they will go, etc. They need to abide by the laws where they do business and that's the end of it.
Re: (Score:2)
My opinion is de-monetize but do not block the Russian channels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
humorous.
google thinks economics.
verses a group that uses bullets
Re: (Score:2)
Google likes money,
But the real question would be what is more expensive, bucking the US Government and dealing with any legal fallout, or the revenue from doing what they are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a third option.
Cancelling Google Products. :P
Yo Grark
Re: (Score:2)
4th option: Change nothing, just don't send the checks. Let the stack of payments pile up until the sanction is lifted or the payee is no longer considered to be part of a sanctioned entity/state.
Maybe send them a friendly note to remind them how much money they can't have. How much their nation's foreign policy has cost them to date.
Re: (Score:2)
Economic sanctions don't imply de-platforming. That's not their goal. Their goal is to put economic stress on the targets.
Now, if the US were to go to war over the issue? Ya- you had probably better de-platform.
A real life analogy, is local financial institutions. When the accounts of sanctioned individuals are frozen, they're not closed. They're merely frozen.
Further deposits are split off into a separate accou
Re: (Score:2)
No, this will hopefully only show how Google complies with laws in the countries on both sides of this conflict.
Google should be neutral grounds, and anyone should be able to post their opinion on YT, as long as they stay within the law(s).
You know, freedom of speech and all that...
I disagree with the invasion of Ukraine, but I agree with people being able to have a different opinion.
Censoring them now means someone might censor you tomorrow, for no good reason other than disagreeing with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice FP, though it's also a silly and obviously rhetorical question (without the question mark). Even though there are still many (alleged) humans still working at the google, the google (as a giant corporate cancer) knows which side of the bread has the butter. Even the search https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com] hits the answer on the "lucky" first chance. You can't spell "profits" with "human rights". (No "p", "o", and "f".)
However right now my Ukraine filters are set for "Finland" and "Afghanistan". Not su
Re: (Score:2)
Google/YT should not remove the channel or the videos -- I strongly support freedom of speech and it is very important that we remain aware of the misinformation and propaganda that the Russian government is spreading.
However, I find it abhorrent that RTs chanel remains monetized whilst it continues to spread this "misinformation" -- especially since YT actually took down one of my videos and issued a community-strike when I simply suggested that we should accept that different people make different choices
Re: (Score:2)
You can fuck off now.
Re: (Score:2)
You can fuck off now
Thank you so much for giving your permission... much appreciated.
Re: (Score:2)
It's money. Next question?
Re: (Score:2)
Just do what pornhub did, and geoblock-isolate the Russian content.
All content uploaded by Russian users is demonetized by default. Specific Russian "mouth piece" content is contentID'd and then any users who sample/reupload it, are demonetized globally.
The problem is that blocking Russian users may also block activists, but also may expose Russian activists to retribution. Since we hit the sections problem, Alphabet can just halt all payments to users within Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
money or human rights.
It's not Google's job to preserve human rights. That's a government's job. It's why governments exist. Corporations exist to make money. There shouldn't be any pressure to do anything. If governments want YT to do something, they should enforce it by law. It's ironic that governments sit back and do next to nothing but we expect corporations fight our war.
Re: (Score:2)
So ... (Score:2)
Not much of a dilemma.. (Score:2)
If there are sanctions, then drop em. The fact that 2.7 million views happened is not a "but we should violate sanctions" scenario. Unless they feel somehow they have a moral obligation to support the party being sanctioned, but in this case I don't think you'd find a lot of sympathy for that approach.
It may be a hit to them, but it's not a dilemma, as it's not a difficult choice to make, losing a few million viewers versus illegally violating sanctions most people agree with is not a dilemma.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The company already routinely shuts off accounts for a variety of reasons. They do it most notably copyright strikes, but also for many videos that violate their terms such as for sexual content. They can (and do) stop all videos from a content creator, leaving it in their systems and available to the creator but blocked from anyone else. They have switches they can flip that will keep the person entirely out of their account, others that will let them into the account but prohibit the videos from spreading
Do not hesitate (Score:2)
So weird to call this a dilemma (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just a straightforward choice between money and morality. A dilemma suggests someone faced with an agonising decision where there are no good answers: "do we turn off the life support?". This is not that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But dumb, no way!
I don't understand the long-term strategy, though. Lets say no one interferes and Putin captures Ukraine.
Ok, what's his long-term plan? Hoping that people will eventually just forget the invasion happened?
Re: (Score:2)
A year ago you could say that. Since then, Putin has crossed the line into dumb. Or "completely out of touch with reality." Take your pick.
Re: (Score:2)
Putin is dumb in the way communists are dumb. People just won't work for the state. Creating an environment where the best and brightest leave isn't doing Russia any favors. Their birthrate is dropping, so is the U.S.'s. However, no one is clamoring to emigrate to the kleptocracy that is Putin's Russia.
Leave - further and further west. Until suddenly there is no West to run to.
Re: (Score:2)
It does not matter. As I watched this unfold I had some hope the west would support Ukraine. I now see Ukraine is clearly being thrown under the bus.
Exactly. Had I not been saddened I would have laughed at my own Prime minister describing "significant sanctions" as "severe consequences". As you said, this was all foreseen by Putin and the oligarchs and factored into their plans.
The most insightful thing I've heard so far came from Zelenskiy himself when he said "This is the sound of a new iron curtain, which has come down and is closing Russia off from the civilised world".
A new iron curtain is exactly what Putin and the oligarchs want. And I suspect th
Wake up moron (Score:2)
All of this was predicted. For Russia, it was about NATO expansion. For the United States it was about gas.
The United States used Ukraine to force Russia to move in, in order to get Germany to kill the nord stream 2 pipeline.
The conflict could have been avoided but the United States did not care about NATO expansion and wanted to put down an economic competitor.
Re: (Score:2)
It's when push comes to shove, really. Talk is cheap, action is expensive.
* It's easy to announce "Our nation condemns this action".
* It is more difficult to say "We are stopping new agreements moving forward". It costs future money, and risks unpopularity with businesses.
* It is even more difficult to say "We are aborting deals in progress", which costs future money, a little present money, and can be more unpopular.
* It is even more difficult to say "We are cutting off current financial ties", which
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how that works.
Re: (Score:2)
Commitments indeed... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;
5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State;
6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.
Re: (Score:2)
United States wanted to kill nord stream 2 pipeline, for now mission accomplished
United States wanted to distance Germany and Russia, mission accomplished
It was never about the Ukraine .
Re: (Score:2)
So weird to call this a dilemma [...] It's just a straightforward choice between money and morality.
That doesn't make it weird.
A dilemma suggests someone faced with an agonising decision where there are no good answers
Uh no. It suggests someone faced with literally two (or, through retcon, more than two) options that are difficult to choose between because neither is appealing. ("via Latin from Greek [google.com] dilÄ"mma, from di- âtwiceâ(TM) + lÄ"mma âpremiseâ(TM).") Option 1, continue amplifying Russian propaganda, making the world a worse place; Option 2, stop monetizing Russian propaganda, making less money. Sounds like a dilemma to me.
Re: (Score:2)
So I say "agonising decision" and "no good answers" and you say NO! it's instead "difficult to choose" (instead of "agonising") and "neither is appealing" instead of "no good answers".
Don't hurt your feet on that pinhead.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a straightforward choice between money and morality. A dilemma suggests someone faced with an agonising decision where there are no good answers: "do we turn off the life support?". This is not that
In a straightforward choice between money and morality, we both know morality has already lost that one.
This is a choice between money and legality. Or more accurately, how can we continue to monetise this without overtly breaking the law.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a straightforward choice between money and morality.
All decisions are straightforward choices when you boil them down, including your life support situation which also has a clear yes / no answer. The gauge of whether there something is a dilemma is whether or not the choices have an obvious correct answer.
So what is it? Money or morality? While you think about it, consider the goal of a for profit entity, consider the morality choice on public perception, and how that ties back into profit. Consider the legal ramifications of working with a sanctioned group
Googles gonna do the new thing (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Evil isn't google's main thing, making money is their main thing. Evil is just a means to an end. Google isn't deliberately evil, they just don't care if they're evil. But then, the people operating PRISM et al don't give two fucks if you want to be evil or not. They will throw you in prison if you even inform the public that they insist that you be evil, under NSL.
All this means you can't trust Google, but equally we shouldn't demonize them for the things they're forced to do. We should be going after the
Re: (Score:2)
Making money isn't necessarily evil if you're not beating people up in the process. Google is mostly annoying, except their contribution to the global panopticon, which they don't really have any choice about.
If Spotify Taught Us Anything (Score:2)
Business does not give a shit about what happens to people as long as they get paid. I'm sure Google has it's corporate bullshit spread out so far over the world to avoid US taxes that they'll get away with this.
All they care about is getting paid. Period. They don't care what wars they help flame or what international sanctions they violate. Money in their pocket is the bottom line. I think there should be a boycott by content creators until they do what's right.
What dilemma? (Score:2)
Google just needs the right motivation. The right motivation being: Fines amounting to 100x Google's revenue from the pro-Russia channels until they are shut down. If money is the motivator, then motivate with money.
Re: (Score:2)
While the sentiment is understandable, having a law targeting one company is unconstitutional. Suppose you target social media in general. Fine, in 10 years after the court cases stop, we'll have an answer.
History rhyming again (Score:2)
Like Sir John Reith and the BBC banning Winston Churchill's warnings prior to WWII in addition to the BBC's employment of Leftist writers and announcers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At the worst, it would be demonetised (Score:2)
Google has to follow the laws and court decisions in the country wherever it operates, but one jurisdiction is not allow to rule over another. However, Youtube can not be asked to give preferential treatment to one channel or the other.
In this case, Solovyov is one of Putin's goons that are under economic sanctions.
I think the best at the present would be to block the channel worldwide but to keep the account dormant. At the same time, turn a blind eye to (Western state-sponsored) hackers hijacking the chan
Communist... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nor sure what communism has to do with the topic. But freedom of speech isn't a right in most countries, including capitalist ones. And Russia is not a communist country in any way shape or form. And neither is the Ukraine, or the US, or... well, not sure who you're saying is communist. Google?
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is not a communist country. It's a perfect example of how your Communist boogymen have nothing to do with Communism, and everything to do with authoritarian governments.
This is an important distinction, because it means we're not immune from becoming the same if dumbfucks like you are allowed to have their way.
Re: Communist... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a pretty reasonable deduction.
You're right though, I didn't account for the possibility of you having a stroke and accidentally getting lost while trying to shitpost on some article on China or some shit.
Re: Communist... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You used an article about Pro-Russia Russian Youtube channels to insinuate that gen z are communists?
Sounds to me like they've got a better grasp of history than you do.
Roost (Score:2)
Chickens are coming home to roost. Youtube needs to be a neutral platform, and not an arbiter of ideology, truth, and taste.
Just cancel Russia (Score:2)
And ghost them. :-)
Your Funny joke needed here! (Score:2)
Sorry, this is not the joke you were looking for. Can't you post it?
But I think YouTube is the joke. Not a funny joke, but still the same old sick joke it always was. With LOTS of "valuable" eyeballs.
There is no dilemma (Score:2)
Why is Google still in Russia? (Score:2)
Didn't Biden already promised the most stringent sanctions against Russia? And haven't the US already froze Russian assets in the US? And haven't Russia already promised retaliation?
Why is Google still operating in Russia, aren't they worried that Russia will simply freeze their assets in their retaliation?
Everyone has an agenda. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let everyone talk. or if you must do 'sanctions' stop picking favorites and just block the whole damned country.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. I didn't just invade a sovereign democratic country. I'm not a brutal police state rules by a brutal dictator.
No, it's not really the same. I believe in an offensive approach to protecting democracy and freedom.
Tolerate all except the intolerant. Freedom to all except those who seek to destroy our freedom. Just trying to be the good guy to all ends up with the bad guys taking advantage of your weaknesses.
Re: (Score:2)
You can fuck off now.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. I didn't just invade a sovereign democratic country. I'm not a brutal police state rules by a brutal dictator.
Maybe not, but what does it matter? I am the censor, and I have decided to censor everyone who says you are not a dictator.
Now the only thing the world hears is that you are a dictator. You deserve to be censored.
Everyone wants to choose who to censor, but very few people will actually get that choice. It won't be you.
Re:Dilemma? To become your enemy. (Score:2)
Shutting down opposing views seems to work well for China and North Korea.
But we'd need more federal control of the Internet to make sure they don't reappear on other platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has to do with the right to speak your mind, not a right to a platform to broadcast your views. Those are two totally different things.
YT has their own servers and outlets to express their view.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has to do with the right to speak your mind, not a right to a platform to broadcast your views. Those are two totally different things.
YT has their own servers and outlets to express their view.
If the government is fining google for not censoring, then it is a first amendment issue.
Also, "a platform to broadcast your views" is similar to a free press.
If Google on their own, decides to block these channels with no pressure from the government, then I would agree that this is not a 1st Amendment issue.
Re: (Score:2)
If the government is fining google for not censoring, then it is a first amendment issue.
But not if it's a foreign national on foreign soil.
Also, "a platform to broadcast your views" is similar to a free press.
Similar, but distinct.
It's more analogous to a public square, but distinct from that too.
Perhaps a privately owned square used as a public square, which is why the jurisprudence around the situation is complicated.
If Google on their own, decides to block these channels with no pressure from the government, then I would agree that this is not a 1st Amendment issue.
If Google decides to follow government orders to de-platform people protected by the Bill of Rights, then I would agree that this is a first amendment issue.
Re: (Score:2)
The gov't issue is sanctions, which means doing business, which means money is exchanged. They should be able to simply demonitize without deplatforming.
And YT is a foreign company and not U.S. citizens, so it isn't 1st Amendment no matter what.
Re: (Score:2)