Google keeps refusing to remove videos of reporter’s murder (her dad's story)

[samhexum]

My daughter Alison Parker, a television reporter for CBS affiliate WDBJ in Roanoke, Va., was shot and killed while she conducted a live interview on television almost five years ago. The gunman was a former WDBJ colleague who not only killed Alison, 24, but murdered photojournalist Adam Ward, 27. Since then, I have not only tried to change the gun culture that took their lives, but I’ve also been relentless in my quest to force Google to remove the videos of her murder from the web and stop the company profiting from them.

 

Immediately after Alison’s death, the grisly video began appearing on YouTube, which is owned by Google. There were hundreds of copies of the video and thousands of vile comments attached to them. “I watched her die and I really enjoyed it” was one of the worst. Others accused my family of making money from her death, or called it a hoax.

 

It’s not like Google has a 1-800 number that you can call and say “I have serious problems with these videos.” I first called customer service for gmail, and went down the rabbit hole of algorithms that gave me automatic responses to my concerns. After years of trying to get answers, it was only when I joined forces with the Civil Rights Law Clinic at Georgetown University in 2018 that I got some response. Last spring, the legal group drafted a demand letter to Google, which resulted in a video-conference with YouTube’s chief counsel and a few Google executives.

 

But they did nothing for me.

 

In fact, Google’s response to my crusade has been to flat out ignore me, promise changes that never materialized, invent reason after reason for why they can’t abide by their own rules, perjure themselves before Congress in claiming that these videos were in fact gone, and tell me to individually watch each video in order to report it and possibly have it removed.

 

Imagine being told that if you want videos of your child’s murder removed from the internet, you must watch and describe every single one of them. I have not and will never watch these videos. It is inhumane to subject families of victims to the trauma of watching their loved one’s last moments. Worse still, whoever clicks on these monetized videos is then directed to others that are related because this is what YouTube’s algorithms do. How do I know this? Because volunteers have done what I can’t do — watch countless videos of Alison’s murder and then flag and remove them. Even when they go through that process, they are met with an algorithm that often simply ignores the flag.

 

Despite Google’s Terms of Service, which states that they don’t allow any graphic content including murder videos, hate speech and other harassment, the tech giant publishes any content it wants — good, bad, or horrific. This is because in the mid 1990s, the Communications Decency Act was passed along with a Section labeled 230. Its purpose was to ensure and foster a free exchange of ideas on a fledgling service called the internet. It was a great idea at the time, but I liken it to when the Founding Fathers crafted the Second Amendment. Just as they never envisioned the evolution of the musket into an assault rifle, neither could lawmakers in the ’90s foresee the rise of social media and the cesspool it has created in its wake. Today, Section 230 provides total immunity from liability for the likes of Google, YouTube and Facebook.

 

The two co-founders of Google started with a mission statement — “Don’t be Evil.” But for all the good Google has done, the company is in fact perpetrating evil every day it lets videos of my daughter stay on its platform. After my testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last summer, Senator Ted Cruz told me “If Blockbuster sent you a video of Alison’s murder you could sue them for everything they’re worth.” My response was, “Yes, Senator, you’re right, so help me do something.”

 

Google’s failure to adhere to its own terms of service is why, with the help of the Georgetown University Civil Rights Law Clinic, I filed a complaint against the Federal Trade Commission on Feb. 20. Currently, this is the only recourse I have thanks to the cover of immunity provided by Section 230. But this is just the beginning.

 

If ever there was a time for bipartisan action, this is it. Given the overwhelming evidence of unlawful conduct by YouTube, I hope my FTC complaint will expedite congressional action to end or amend Section 230.

 

If online platforms were compelled to adhere to the ethical and legal standards of any other legitimate publishing outlet, the Internet would be a different, safer place. But tech companies clearly have no standards and no moral compass. This has to stop. If they are publishing content, it’s time to treat them like all other publishers.

 

Andy Parker is an advocate for gun safety and the author of “For Alison: The Murder of a Young Journalist and a Father’s Fight for Gun Safety.”

[jjkrkwood]

@samhexum , perhaps you should put the "byline" at the beginning?. When I started reading, I thought it was YOUR story, which made it even more disturbing for me....

[mike carey]

@samhexum , perhaps you should put the "byline" at the beginning?. When I started reading, I thought it was YOUR story, which made it even more disturbing for me....

Yes, that would be a good idea, and perhaps even work out how to post it in a 'quotation box'. That would be good..

[samhexum]

https://nypost.com/2022/02/23/alison-parkers-father-turns-video-of-murder-into-nft-in-bid-to-pull-it-from-web/

The father of a TV reporter who was fatally shot along with her cameraman during a live broadcast turned the horrifying video into an NFT, or non-fungible token, in a “Hail Mary” bid to remove it from the internet.

Andy Parker, whose daughter Alison Parker was gunned down by a disgruntled former co-worker, has transformed the harrowing clip of her murder into an NFT in an effort to claim copyright ownership of it and allow him to sue social media outlets, the Washington Post reported.

“This is the Hail Mary — an act of desperation,” Parker told the newspaper.

Parker created an NFT of the murder video in December on Rarible, a marketplace that deals in crypto assets, the newspaper reported.

An NFT is a non-interchangeable unit of data — such as images, videos and audio files — stored on a blockchain that can be sold and traded.

Attorney Adam Massey of C.A. Goldberg, a law firm that has advised Parker, said NFTs could be used to claim the copyright of a video.

“For victims of horrific images being distributed on the internet generally, unfortunately and inappropriately copyright does end up being an effective tool,” he said.

Andy Parker created an NFT of the murder video in December on Rarible. Vester Lee Flanagan II/Twitter via AP

But ownership disputes have emerged and case law regarding their use is still limited.

Parker’s latest strategy is his most recent effort to prevent the shocking footage of the August 2015 shooting from circulating online, where it has become a painful reminder of his daughter’s death.

Despite assurances from top social media execs that it will be removed, the grisly video repeatedly resurfaces, according to a recent complaint filed by Parker and attorneys with the Georgetown Law Civil Rights Clinic.

WDBJ parent company Gray Television reportedly owns the copyright to the original video of Alison Parker’s shooting. Facebook

The grisly video has been viewed millions of times on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and other sites.

In October, Parker’s complaint to the Federal Trade Commission said “the reality is that Facebook and Instagram put the onus on victims and their families to do the policing of graphic content — requiring them to relive their worst moments over and over to curb the proliferation of these videos.”

Parker said at the time that he also wanted to see action from Congress.

Andy Parker said the circulating video of the shooting is a painful reminder of his daughter’s death. Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

“Alison’s murder, shared on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, is just one of the egregious practices that are undermining the fabric of our society,” he said last year.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have called for stripping away some of the protections granted by a 25-year-old law — in a provision known as Section 230 — that shields internet companies from liability for what users post.

Facebook and YouTube said they have removed thousands of clips of the murders, but many have remained on the platforms, the newspaper reported.

“Facebook and Instagram put the onus on victims and their families to do the policing of graphic content,” Andy Parker argued.

WDBJ parent company Gray Television reportedly owns the copyright to the original video of the shooting.

Kevin Latek, chief legal officer for Gray, argues that the clip does not depict Parker’s murder since the “video does not show the assailant or the shootings during the horrific incident,” according to the Washington Post.

He told the paper in a statement that the company has “repeatedly offered to provide Mr. Parker with the additional copyright license” to call on social media outlets to remove the video “if it is being used inappropriately.”

Alison Parker and photojournalist Adam Ward were both killed in the shooting. Facebook

But even if Parker’s strategy works, getting the copyrighted clip removed would not be enough because the NFT doesn’t cover a separate clip of the murder captured by the shooter, the outlet said.

“We remain committed to removing violent footage filmed by Alison Parker’s murderer, and we rigorously enforce our policies using a combination of machine learning technology and human review,” YouTube spokesperson Jack Malon told the paper in a statement.

Jen Ridings, a spokesperson for Facebook parent company Meta, said, “We’ve removed thousands of videos depicting this tragedy since 2015, and continue to proactively remove more.”

I can't even imagine the pain this must bring him... I hope he succeeds.

Edited February 23, 2022 by samhexum