What do you think about human rights (and your rights) online?
Government police shutting down farmer’s protests in China. A tobacco company employing under-age workers in Kazakhstan. Iranian merchants striking to protest tax increases in Tehran. We've seen stories like these on our computers and phones every day, and we've been documenting many of them on our breaking news feed on Citizentube over the past few months. Videos like these are more than just breaking news images; they're often political statements meant to bring about change.
Earlier this summer we started a blog series with WITNESS, a human rights video advocacy and training organization, examining the role of online video in human rights. So far we’ve talked about why video matters to human rights and how you can protect yourself and the people you film when uploading to YouTube. In this post, we want to raise some key topics about the future of human rights video online, and to hear your thoughts and ideas in a special Moderator series that we've set up on these questions:
How can uploaders balance privacy concerns with the need for wider exposure?
YouTube and other websites give citizens the opportunity to tell stories that would otherwise not get get heard. But what if wider exposure could be harmful to the people you’ve captured on video? At Google and YouTube, we talk a lot about the privacy of your personal data, but what about the privacy of your personal visual identity? There are some exciting technologies that can automatically identify human faces in digital media, but the implications of these technologies need to be considered carefully: if improperly implemented, they could make it even easier for governments and oppressive regimes to identify, track down and arrest activists or protesters (this has happened in Burma and Iran). While we’ve said before that people should consider blurring the faces in human rights videos and getting consent from those they film, inevitably judgment calls need to be made by uploaders who are trying to get footage out quickly to massive audiences to raise awareness. How do you think uploaders can find the right balance?
How can we stay alert to human rights footage without getting de-sensitized to it?
What image first opened your eyes to a human rights issue? In the past, in many countries, human rights images were largely filtered through the news media. But today, nearly everyone has seen a video or photo on the Internet that has made them aware of injustice. With access to these kinds of images getting easier, and more stories appearing from more places, the sheer quantity of this content risks either overwhelming viewers, or desensitizing us to its value. Researchers, educators and legislators are all thinking about how to build media literacy for the virtual age -- and human rights is a growing part of that discussion. How do you think people can stay alert to the power of these images without becoming immune to them?
Does human rights content online require some kind of special status?
As many of the examples in this blog series illustrate, human rights video is unique, and it requires special consideration by viewers, activists, legislators and online platforms. At YouTube, our terms of service carve out special exceptions for videos that have educational, scientific, or documentary value. But in many cases, human rights content is subjective and requires special interpretation -- and now that video can spread far and wide and can easily be reused and remixed beyond its original context (including by human rights abusers themselves), it’s even more important to follow some common guidelines. Every online hosting platform on the web has its own policies for dealing with this content and slowly, a new set of ethics and guidelines is developing in this arena. What do you think those guidelines should look like? And do you think human rights video deserves some kind of special status across the web? Why or why not?
We’d like to hear your thoughts on these questions. Submit your responses or questions to our Moderator series on Citizentube, in video or in text, and we’ll continue the conversation with thoughts on some of your top-voted submissions in a future post.
Steve Grove, Head of News & Politics, YouTube, and Sameer Padania for WITNESS
Posts
21 comments:
Es dificil medir el alcance de los actos personales , desde la mas simple foto personal, hasta poner me gusta en la opcion del facebook en una entidad ej:green peace.
Un individuo y su eleccion de libertad. Pero es una libertad que esta fuera de su propio conocimiento,y conciencia cierta de sus actos.
Es posible que muchos lleguen a la paranoia de que la ciencia ficcion es mas una realidad que un film.
Como dije es muy dificil,sobre para personas comunes como lo soy yo que solo soy una simple ama de casa , pero tambien a otras personas.
Creo que los derechos humanos tienen que existir.,pero hay que tener mucho cuidado con el ojo con el que se mira.
Es muy diferente pedir derechos humanos en una cultura diferente a la nuestra y eso es lo que mas hay que respetar y tratar de comprender.
Los derechos y nuestras diferencias sociales,politicas, culturales y religiosas.
Es una simple opion. saludos y gracias por dejar expresar mi humilde opinion.
I think Human Rights Video deserves a special status globally. To think that this is about restoring the dignity of the human person and fight against all forms of oppression. I cannot begin to assume what that status should be, but the technical persons can come up with the appropriate terms.
For every human rights footage, to ensure that we don't get desensitized, there must be an ensuing lively discussion that follows and a consequent broadcast on reliable global media, where policy makers can be confronted with the need to take action.
How to protect myself from a human rights tsunami? If everything is inside the set of human rights, then human rights becomes blurred, obscurantist. I would like to say, in Groucho Marx's spirit: I want the right of a space not covered by human rights.
Complete lod of tosh
Open YouTube for Turkey!
Well, I'm absolutely appalled that facebook is blocking marijuana legalization ads. It's ridiculous. We can't keep up with the times if they don't tell us, and let's face it, everybody uses facebook.
Are you trying to turn this into QQ, China's regulated version of 'facebook'.
We see videos of people who brutally hurt others (and animals) and it isn't blocked, not that I think it should be, because people need to see how cruel the world can be, but people will block an ad due to marijuana being mentioned?
Another something i find odd is that on youtube, you can find a video of a baby being born, which is quite graphic, but they'll block a video that needs to be seen of graphic abuse to animals. It's all complete bull.
I apologize if my facts seem all over the place, but I just woke up.
Advocacy can lead to misinformation. The internet is too vague, and it's easy to be anonymous. What if all this stuff is a lie, put on by the government?
"Human Rights" uses the collective noun "human", but rights are not collective. Properly, the issue is one of "Individual Rights", because the source and holder of all rights is the individual.
Human Rights content need a special status, the power of human rights can change a nation with consecutative human right abuses dramatically. Youtube needs to be open to countries such as Iran, China, and Mymanmar.
Really Google? And you don't think this is what Verision or AT&T will do when they have free reign over their networks? Come on. Loved you as the "do no evil" group but is this because of Oracle trying to take away Android?
My 2p is that laws and regulations in this area would become to hard to, well, regulate. Seems like the internet is growing just fine how it is. However I do like that you brought to the publics attention about what is already happening.
Btw I'm from Australia where the government wants to take away our right to view what we're not allowed to view (filtering and blocking access to the list of filtered sites) so I say revolt against the govrenment for allowing such unjust representation.
Not a big revolt, just a small one...
Sorry if I spelt Verizion wrong :P
But seriously *sadface*
It's a interesting news,i like it
If something is important enough, than more people will upload it than can be blocked. E.g. Greenpeace Kit Kat video.
That's well said Daniel. "The issue is one of "Individual Rights", because the source and holder of all rights is the individual." After all the decision maker is the single person.
Database Management
I agree with Daniel. "Human rights" is universal, and every time needs a correction because each time it finds itself with a phase difference regarding the individual. The individual feels weak as such, and forms a community to protect his/her rights, he/she succeeds, but once more he grasps he/she has arrived at a crossroads between the "singular" and the "human". Let me call this a "Groucho Marx paradox".
Transparency for the big firms and complete privacy for us individuals.
We need to stop anti-americans such as Fox News. They consistently attack our president, they are racist, pessimists and more. Glenn Beck from Fox News hatefully made fun of Obama's daughter. Go to www.unmaskingfoxnews.com click on "Being Racist?" and watch the video yourself. There's a lot more revealing videos to watch on that website.
As long as there are different people, there will be different views on any topic.
My view on a woman's rights will be different from the Taliban views of a woman's rights.
There will NEVER be an agreement between me and the Taliban on this matter.
So unless we all subscribe to the same views (mine are obviously the best, just ask me) there will never be unanimity.
But then unanimity can only be found written on the underside of a gravestone. So until we all eventually read the writing on the underside of the gravestone, I am afraid we must find a way of living with diversity. Whether we like diversity or not.
And if someone tries to impose unanimity of ideas (except for my ideas. My ideas are the best. Did I mention that?) we as human beings must fight against that imposition, to the last drop of someone else's blood.
I love the idea of CitizenTube as human rights watchdog. But it need not be filled with clips of human rights violations. What about documenting events and places where human rights are being protected in spite of lagging local law and/or enforcement?
Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states "everyone has the right to ... receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
I run WhyEquals (www.whyequals.com), a start-up project in Chapel Hill, NC with the mission to to evangelize information access through sustainability.
We are making progress together with several other local groups, and to document it, we are currently making a series of short videos of people accessing information that they previously could not afford.
I would love to share these with Citizentube when they are ready. To show your support please follow us @whyequals
nice post about Human Rights...
Ask Question and get Answer:Questionaries.org
David I. says, Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states "everyone has the right to ... receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." is misleading in that the UN allows its members a free vote on each and every issue. It is left to the individual country to not/support an article to which they are signatory.
I am already desensitized to all the "human rights" issues at the present parade because they are too far removed from my immediate sphere; because i cannot find the time nor the energy needed to expend on someone else's problems; they should be more proactive in assessing and fighting their own battles and not be asking for my sympathy; they should stop running to other countries and taking a stand there while calling on the citizens of their new country to aid in their fight; there are too many bleeding hearts and protesters looking for some excitement in their lives; and there really isn't any need to continue feed the proliferation of news organizations by "creating" news.
This topic upsets me to such length I just don't talk about it anymore in any language that is not based on satire. The only recourse many of us have is grassroots activism: beyond the net. Data alone does not open governments. Hate the game not the player (Twitter, Facebook, Google, WikiLeaks).
Post a Comment