Gawker
We'd be the first to agree that a video clip of Al Roker singing could certainly be considered "inappropriate." But why would our newly cash-flush friends at YouTube reject this clip in particular? It's hard to say, really. Clips that we post on Gawker are occasionally yanked by YouTube when the relevant television program and/or celebrity objects on copyright grounds, but even that standard is indifferently applied. Several clips of interviews with Ann Coulter were also yanked offline, each tagged with the inscrutable "Rejected (content inappropriate)" warning message. It's possible that "(content inappropriate)" is the default rationale when the YouTube censor doesn't feel like supplying a more specific qualifier, or the generic explanation for clips deleted before YouTube's rejection policies got a little more detailed. However, it's just as likely that any video might have succumbed to the weight of increasing "flagger" wars waged by competing online blowhards. That might not have saved Al Roker, but perhaps Ann Coulter's clips might have stuck around awhile longer.
When a user flags a YouTube video as inappropriate, they're presented with five potential reasons (all exclusive of copyright complaints, which are handled separately). The available flavors of naughtiness are "Sexually explicit," "Mature (over 18 only) content," "Other terms of use violation," "Graphic violence," and the recently added "Hate speech." Some of these flags, especially the "Mature" variety, can just result in a clip getting an interstitial warning — users will henceforth see a screen asking them to confirm their willingness to wallow in the evil video before it plays. Those that fail the appropriateness test completely get deleted. Supposedly, any flagged clip will be reviewed within 24-48 hours.
Activist video flagging got a little attention a couple weeks back when YouTube inadvertently incited a miniature ideological jihad between conservative and liberal blogger types. Fan favorite Michelle Malkin had one of her videos pulled after unfriendly YouTube users flagged it as "inappropriate." Crying censorship, or at least inappropriate censorship (the irony!), other conservative bloggers retaliated by fanning out across YouTube and flagging clips that represented viewpoints they didn't like. You can guess what happened next. Retaliatory flagging has quickly become a standard practice to sabotage your opponents or just piss them off. It wouldn't be surprising if our Ann Coulter clips were flagged and yanked by someone who just doesn't like Ann Coulter. We may just be the victims of friendly fire.
YouTube does not respond to requests for explanation when videos get pulled for inappropriate content, and there's no stated way to appeal the decision (let alone track or confront one's accusers/flaggers). Again, the situation's both different and inconsistent with copyright complaints, which sometimes involve formal notification before a clip gets pulled, and sometimes don't. Still, given YouTube's burgeoning presence and publicity, it's hard to imagine their censorship review department can afford to spend much time splitting hairs, content-wise, when faced with a 48-hour deadline to review every flag. For all we know (or for all YouTube will admit), content reviews are outsourced to India, where maybe they're quite willing to ban Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter or Martha Stewart videos all day long, merely because a couple people flagged them as "hate speech." Just for laughs, we'll be performing a few flag tests, and we'll report back on the results, if any.
So is this new hyper-responsiveness to flagging a result of the Google sale? Is it an expansion of the recent mass wipeout of Japanese material? Or just random paranoia about the ever-present specter of copyright infringement? Probably a bit of all three, but more than anything, the flag wars are the umpteenth object lesson in the dark side of online community involvement. You give and give, but sooner or later they turn on you. Enough with flagging clips; we want a method for flagging actual users as inappropriate. Unless YouTube ever comes around to the idea of institionalized executions.
