Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Youtube

Google Faces Sanctions Dilemma With Pro-Russia YouTube Channels (bloomberg.com) 122

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
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This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Faces Sanctions Dilemma With Pro-Russia YouTube Channels More

Google Faces Sanctions Dilemma With Pro-Russia YouTube Channels

Comments Filter:

  • This will show what Google likes most ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Friday February 25, 2022 @09:42AM (#62302633) Homepage

    money or human rights.

    • Re:This will show what Google likes most ... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ferocitus ( 4353621 ) on Friday February 25, 2022 @09:53AM (#62302685)

      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)

        by DewDude ( 537374 )

        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)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          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.)

      • If Tucker Carlson fans left YT in huff, it would clean up the comments section tremendously.

      • 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.

      • "In democracy it's your vote in elections that counts; In feudalism it's your count that votes" --Jallberg

    • 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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The hallmark of a free society is destroying information you disagree with.
      • The hallmark of a free society is destroying information you disagree with.

        Such as burning books and prohibiting certain subjects being taught in schools, right?

      • The issue is not the information that google is providing, it is the fact of where does that ad revenue money go.

    • When they change their name to alphabet as I recall. So the answer is money. With large companies it's always money. You don't need to ask. That is why we need to have regulations and laws. Companies aren't immoral they are amoral. They have no morality whatsoever. I find that much worse because it's never personal, it's just business. That kind of cold indifference can lead them much worse atrocities.

      • I don't really care about the profits, I just want people to suffer -- Gozer the Gozerian

      • 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.

    • Or freedom of speech.

      My opinion is de-monetize but do not block the Russian channels.

    • humorous.
      google thinks economics.
      verses a group that uses bullets

    • 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.

    • There is a third option.

      Cancelling Google Products. :P

      Yo Grark

      • 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.

        • This seems like the most obvious option to me, I don't get why it isn't being expressed me.

          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)

      by knaapie ( 214889 )

      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)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      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

    • 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

    • It's money. Next question?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kisai ( 213879 )

      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.

    • 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.

    • Let's take a shareholder vote on this...
  • ... are they changing to Well-Not-YOU-Tube?

  • 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)

      by RobinH ( 124750 )
      I doubt they'll lose any viewers. They'll just show them something else to click.

    • 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 it. It has to be done either now or it won't matter at all.

  • So weird to call this a dilemma (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shilly ( 142940 ) on Friday February 25, 2022 @09:55AM (#62302699)

    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

    • 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. Sanctions are not including energy, in fact gas flows are up a bit to Germany. Putin thought this thru carefully. EU is dependant on Russia for energy, and Putin carefully set it up by cutting gas storage in Europe this past year. Putin cut US Treasury holdings over the past several years to be less dependant on dollars. Look at the markets, recovering already
      • What Putin made is double the bets: you want a free Ukraine, come and save her. You can say anything about Putin. Evil? Okay Mastermind? Sure Machiavellian? 100% But dumb, no way!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Mitreya ( 579078 )

          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?

        • 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.

      • 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

        • Lots of CIA trolls here on slashdot. Who knew.

          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.

      • 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

        • It was even easier than that. Stand by the commitment not to expand NATO, back in 1989, and none of this happens. https://scheerpost.com/2022/02... [scheerpost.com]

          Funny how that works.

          • 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.

      • You have to be irretrievably stupid not to know the United States was never going to back the Ukraine. The Ukraine is nothing more than a tool.

        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 .

    • 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)

        by shilly ( 142940 )

        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)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      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.

    • 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

  • Evil is googles main goal these days. The same evil driving putin forward, the evil of greed.

    • 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

  • 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.

  • 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)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Freedom of speech isn't a right in a communist country. Treat them as they treat their own people Censor that shit.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Wow a CIA troll. Nice.

    • 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?

    • Freedom to be an ignorant dumbfuck seems to exist in all countries, it seems.

      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.
      • LoL, calling someone a dumbfuck then thinking I was talking about Russia.
        • Being the article is about Pro-Russia Russian youtube channels, and your top-level post is "Communist... ... Treat them as they treat their own people Censor that shit."
          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.
          • Nah, actually I was referring to America teaming with woke gen z thinking it's their only purpose in life to cancel culture and sensor anything they don't understand, saying "this is the way" blindly and not learning from or even coming close to paying attention to history.
            • Got it- you didn't have a stroke. You're an honest-to-god fucking moron.
              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.

  • Chickens are coming home to roost. Youtube needs to be a neutral platform, and not an arbiter of ideology, truth, and taste.

  • And ghost them. :-)

  • 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.

  • Sanction is a sanction and Alphabet isn't going to even think twice on if it should follow the law or not. The dilemma is what it's going to do with all the similar content that isn't specifically sanctioned, does a useful fool parroting Russian propaganda get the same banhammer that a channel backed by a sanctioned entity got?

  • 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?

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close