Friday, June 29, 2018

Twitter Cuts Off Inner City Press Periscope Account For Showing How UN Watches World Cup


By Matthew Russell Lee, New PlatformPatreon
UNITED NATIONS, June 18 – With the large social media platforms like Google and Facebook vowing to use algorithms to prevent terrorist recruitment and for other purposes, the crudeness of results, intended or not, has come to the fore. Google's YouTube is engaged in systematic financial censoring of independent videos about censorship, see below. Now Twitter, with no due process, has suspended Inner City Press' Periscope account for its broadcasting of how the World Cup is watchd at the UN, on screens set up in public areas by the Russian Mission to the UN. On June 18, Inner City Press before its planned broadcasts of the UN noon briefing (on Libya, Colombia and Togo) and on Yemen launched a broadcast of people watching the Belgium - Panama match. Viewers asked Inner City Press to focus more on the TV and Inner City Press declined, saying the purpose is to show how it is viewed and used at the UN. Suddenly the broadcast was cut, and account suspended. This email arrived: "Your broadcast has been disabled in response to the DMCA takedown notice copied at the bottom of this email.

Please note that repeat violations of this policy may result in suspension of your account. In order to avoid this, do not post additional material in violation of third-party copyrights and immediately remove any material from your account for which you are not authorized to broadcast...

Dear Periscope, We write to you on behalf of Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”) who owns and/or controls all audiovisual, visual only and audio only rights in the 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia™.

We have noticed that your platform is making available and/or promoting unauthorised digital transmissions of audiovisual content relating to the 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia™, the intellectual property in respect of which is exclusively owned and/or controlled by FIFA (the “Protected Content”).

On behalf of FIFA, we hereby assert that your making available and/or promoting of the Protected Content on your Platform is not authorised by FIFA, its agent nor the law and that your activities in this regard serve as a serious infringement of FIFA’s exclusive rights.

Contact Information of official representative:
Jonathan Schmitz
Richard-Byrd-St 31
50829 Cologne
Germany
+49 221 35554 360

Name of the copyright owner:
FIFA Fédération Internationale de Football Association

Description of original work: FIFA Copyright Protected Match Footage" The UN and DCMS have a sordid history, with then-Reuters correspondent Louis Charbonneau citing the DCMA to claim that his complaint to UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric to get Inner City Press thrown out of the UN - which happened - as copyrights. The leaked complaint remains blocked from Search. To Twitter, including a staffer than recruited Inner city Press to be part of a Periscope NYC channel, Inner City PRess immediately wrote: "I am a journalist who covers the United Nations. Currently the Russian Mission to the UN has set up TV screens with the games in three locations in the UN. I was seeking to show crowd reactions. Since I use my Periscope account to report on the UN including a noon briefing in 13 minutes and a Yemen meeting after that, I ask that it be immediately restored. Please confirm." Nothing. Watch this site.
Like many independent media, Inner City Press publishes its coverage and associatedcommentary not only on its website but on a number of third party platforms like YouTube,TwitterFacebookScribd and SoundCloud. YouTube is owned by Google, and like its parent allows publishers to monetize their material with advertisements.

But do YouTube and Google behind it engage in censorship? As Inner City Press began its ongoing ramping up of its fight against the eviction of its shared office in the United Nations while asking questions about UN corruptionit has received a series of e-mails from YouTube that its videos on these topics "cannot be monetized" with ads. 
Now it is simply done unilaterally and without explanation or action on requests for review. On March 30 Inner City Press covered a protest march about Cameroon or Ambazonia in front of the UN. The resulting 28 minute video, here, was deemed by Google to be "not suitable for all advertisers." Photo here. A request for review, more than two thousand views in, has not been acted on. So, while still pursuing and reporting on the request for review, it's now on Patreon, here. An 11 minute Inner City Press video about Gaza and the UN Security Council meeting later that day, here, was also de-monetized by Google's YouTube. This is neo-censorship. This in mid-November 2017, with the UN still not responding to Inner City Press' petitions, extended to de-monetizing videos of Inner City Press Q&As with the UN about the scandal of UN Deputy Secretary General Amina J. Mohammed having signed thousands of CITES export permits for rosewood already in China, some of it taken illegally from Cameroon. Photo here, where "Not suitable for most advertisers" is slapped on "UN Refuses To Answer DSG Rosewood Racket Qs from Inner City Press, On Bribes, Cameroon Wood?- and to "On PyeongChang Olympics, ICP Asks What If Missile Test, South Korea Takes Over Briefing Room." And so, for now, we've taken the former to Patreon. In October, Google demonetized Inner City Press' Q&A with US Ambassador Nikki Haley about Cameroon, video here, demonetization here, interviews with people from Southern Cameroons, even footage from a Town Hall meeting by the UN official who has yet to respond to Inner City Press' petition, but we're led to believe will imminently, Alison Smale, bottom of photo here. This is outrageous.On August 28, without even being notified, Inner City Press learned that its videos of its Q&A with the UN about what the UN had done to free Hisham al-Omeisy in Yemen, had been de-monetized by the ostensibly liberal Google and YouTube. More here. This is disgusting.On August 6, Inner City Press received an email denying monetization to interviews Inner City Press conducted with Malaysia's foreign minister, and about French soldiers' impunity for abuse in the Central African Republic, and about migrants, ostenisibly now the UN's big issue under Antonio Guterres"ICP Asks Malaysia FM Anifah of Israel & French Sangaris Dropped from Report, Migrants in Asia."Not advertiser friendly? On July 17Inner City Press received an email denying monetization to interviews by Inner City Press, just outside the UN gates, with activists opposing Morocco's crack down in the Rif region - "On Morocco's Crackdown in Rif, ICP Asks UN 15th Time, Nothing, Interviews Outside UN Gates." Now here on Patreon. Inner City Press appealed to Google, which on July 24 wrote back: "After reviewing your video, we’ve confirmed that the content in your video or video details aren’t advertiser-friendly. As a result, your video can’t be monetized. 'On Morocco's Crackdown in Rif, ICP Asks UN 15th Time, Nothing, Interviews Outside UN Gates.' YouTube reserves the right to make the final decision about video monetization." This is censorship. Which type of protest interviews would Google allow monetization of? By which type of interviewers? On July 17, Google denied monetization to Inner City Presspublic Q&A i the UN aboutthe Ng Lap Seng / John Ashe UN bribery case (as well as Sri Lanka and Western Sahara): "ICP Asks UN Haq How Sri Lanka Troops Vetted, Of W Sahara Memo, Burundi Camp, South South News."Explanatory Periscope video here. Also on July 16, Google denied monetization to a public Q&A with the UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about why UN Deputy Secretary General Amina J. Mohammed met with the Clinton Foundation's director of foreign policy Ami Desai on July 14, and if Haiti had come up. Here's the video Google denied monetization to, while allowing it for nearly identical Q&As on other topics: "ICP Asks Why UN DSG Met Clinton Foundation, Haiti, Libya, Ng Lap Seng Case, Then Genocide Adviser."Here is the Google / YouTube email Inner City Press received, "We didn't approve your video(s) for monetization because the content in your video(s) or video details may not be advertiser-friendly. This after Inner City Press asked Google (X)'s Astro Teller about ithereAnd while Google News' revamp goes out of its way to relegate independent Inner City Press to inclusion on the front page as to the Ng Lap Seng case, but not many of its African stories. It's disgusting. On May 4, Google issued a final, non-appealable denial on monetization to a video of a UN Q&A about Kurdistan and Sri Lanka: "After reviewing your video, we’ve confirmed that the content in your video or video details aren’t advertiser-friendly. As a result, your video can’t be monetized. "At UN on Countering Violent Extremism, ICP Asks CTED & Iraq NGO of Kurdish Women Fighters, Sri Lanka" YouTube reserves the right to make the final decision about video monetization." Google also said this video couldn't be monetized: "Inner City Press Asks CPJ To Push UN for Press Freedom Rules, HRW's UN Rep Dodges on DMCA Censorship" - after Google gave in to a frivolous request from a then-Reuters, now-HRW rep who claimed his anti-Press email to the UN was copyrighted. (This Louis Charbonneau dodged the question on May 3 at the EU Mission to thUN, here). This is doubly disgusting: Google is denying monetization to a Q&A about its own censorship.So, question: does Google have an algorithm to deny monetization to independent content which criticizes it? 
On April 23 YouTube similarly went back todeny monetization to Inner City Press videos about Yemen, Sri Lanka, Armenia, Darfur, the Golan Heights, DRC, Gaza, Ukraine, Qatar, UN censorship. On April 24, Google / YouTube denied Inner City Press' appeal and irrevocably denied monetization to these (compare to longer list below and marvel and the "logic" of this censorship). 
After reviewing your videos, we’ve confirmed that the content in your videos or video details aren’t advertiser-friendly. As a result, your videos can’t be monetized.
YouTube reserves the right to make the final decision about video monetization.
This April 23 email initially denied monetization to: 
"As on Syria UNCA President Pushes for No Fly Zone, UN Tries to Ban FUNCA, Other Views"
  The week before on April 17 this list grew to include a simple Q&A with the UN about censorship in Mali, Paul Biya's cut off of the Internet in Cameroon, and refugees in Lebanon, from Syria. Inner City Press uploaded a video and nearly immediately received this: "Thanks for submitting your video(s) for monetization. We didn't approve your video(s) for monetization because the content in your video(s) or video details may not be advertiser-friendly. 'ICP Asks UN of Mali closing 47 radio stations, Cameroon Net Cut, Syria refugees at risk in Lebanon.'" How can Google and YouTube justify this? It is driving content away from them and to, for example, Patreon (here).
 Google has, on appeal, said "After reviewing your video, we’ve confirmed that the content in your video or video details aren’t advertiser-friendly. As a result, your video can’t be monetized. YouTube reserves the right to make the final decision about video monetization." This final Ban of monetization applies for example to:
  This is the opposite of what Google and similar mega-platforms claim to be doing.Facebook, as another example, talks about flying Internet-distributing drones over Africa. So why haven't they done so over Southern Cameroons in the past 55 days? These platforms should be urged on these issues. On this censorship of the Press by denying or delaying monetization, it seems clear that someone or something has gotten Google's YouTube to do it. We'll have more on this.
   Monetization was similar denied for an Inner City Press video about being ordered out of the UN Press Briefing Room for a "French only" briefing by outgoing French president Francois Hollande, murkily arranged by the UN's still holding-over spokesman Stephane Dujarric. 
 On March 4, monetization not only of Q&As involving Sri Lanka and Ukraine and Yemen has been blocked - now, even a video from inside the UN Press Briefing Room, an exposé of UN censorship. Google's YouTube  wrote:

"We didn't approve your video(s) for monetization because the content in your video(s) or video details may not be advertiser-friendly.
  This was the "precedent" Dujarric wanted to erase, to claim that Inner City Press standing the principled stand that the UN Press Briefing Room has to be for all, not just some chosen, journalists.
"UNcensored 1-4: Evicted from the UN For Investigative Reporting, by Matthew Russell Lee""    The emails said “Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown... We depend on our user community to flag inappropriate videos to us for our review.”
  Even after appeal, videos whose titles including the word "Nusra" for example are deemed ineligible for monetization.
This is no longer a mis-application of a terrorism screen. This is a pattern at Googlesee here.
   These are video of questions and answers (sometimes) at the UN, of protests in the streets of New York, etc. Inner City Press has written,  to Monetization then to Press [at] YouTube.com:

“The videos you are saying are “not advertiser-friendly” are videos of media questions and answers with United Nations spokespeople and diplomats. They are news. The message sent yesterday and today said “you can request an additional review below” - this is a request for review. Look at the videos: they are Q&As in the UN Press Briefing Room.

This is also a request to be informed if it was any complaint to YouTube / Google which triggered this denial of monetization, and if so if it came from the UN or any[one else.]
I note that Reuters [now HRW], got one of its anti-Press emails to the UN banned from Google Search with a frivolous DMCA filinghere.


Please confirm receipt and review the above and restore monetization, answering the question. Google and YouTube should not be involved in any form of censorship, including the denial of monetization of news footage."
Still no substantive answer. So, like at the UN on unilateral decisions to target, evict and restrict particular media, and like some decisions by Twitter to which we will next turn, there is no appeal. (UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who has bragged about the UN's "use" of YouTube, ran out when Inner City Press asked about this, here.) This is UNacceptable. We'll have more on this.