Google deleted a channel of a registered news organization, YOU-ng, and de-indexed a news investigation, which is now much more difficult to reach. The director in charge reported it, Germano Milit, and the reason is a report made to Google by the protagonist of that same investigation, Matteo Pittaluga. Google restored the channel last night after the report made by Republic, speaking of “error”. This morning, for another similar report (from a Pittaluga partner), Google canceled the channel again, even if it resumed the search engine investigation. Google will probably remedy this error too, since everything happened in the same way. Also in January, the Mountain View giant admitted a similar mistake, due to the suspension of the Manifesto app on the Google Store.
Google removes the Manifesto app, Twitter limits Libero: the case of the giants breaks out against the Italian newspapers. “It’s censorship”
by Alessandro Longo
In Young’s case, Pittaluga submitted a copyright takedown request to Google, according to records. YOU-ng has made numerous inquiries on profiles such as Pittaluga’s, who sell courses and consultancy to make money (easily, they say) with digital. Milite has investigated this business which he defines as suspicious and misleading for potential customers. “Under the unfounded pretext of copyright infringement, Pittaluga got our investigation censored,” he says.
Google confirms a Republic: “We periodically review all counter notifications for copyright infringement to identify signs of possible abuse. The YOU-ng channel was closed during this process. Upon further review, we found that this was an error and we promptly restored the channel. We apologize for the inconvenience. “
In the case of the Manifesto, in January, Google had removed the app because it did not trust that the Manifesto was a newspaper (it has been for half a century) and was waiting for information from the newspaper which was however present, as required by Italian law (for example on publisher, collaborators).
In those same days, Twitter had suspended Libero’s account for 14 hours, for “suspicious activity”, without giving any explanations to this day (according to what they know from Libero).
However, a parliamentary question by the senator is recent Gianluigi Comparison (Mixed Group, former M5S) against what he defines censorship of the Byoblu Youtube channel (counter information newspaper).
Youtube closes Byoblu. The founder Messora launches crowdfunding: “Let’s buy a digital channel”
Reason: “YouTube does not tolerate content that disseminates disinformation in the medical field, in contradiction with the information provided on COVID-19 by local health authorities or the World Health Organization (WHO)”. Paragone also made an appeal to Agcom (of 25 February).
The issue is also hot in the US; especially after in October 2020, Twitter blocked the spread of an investigation by the pro-conservative newspaper New York Post on the son of Joe Biden (current US president), before turning back. According to many jurists, the question is broad and touches on fundamental rights. “There is no balance of powers if it is a single subject, moreover private, to establish the balance between freedom of expression and other rights”, as stated by the lawyer Guido Scorza (to the Privacy Guarantor). A greater balance is necessary, according to the US Congress, which has been evaluating new legislative proposals for months; and it is for the European Commission, which for cases like this has proposed the Digital Services Act.
New “digital” rules of the EU Commission: what will change for users
by Alessandro Longo
“If the Digital Services Act package becomes law, we will be able to complain more easily against the platforms’ decisions; know why the platform took them and oppose them,” he explains. Rocco Panetta, Privacy lawyer. A task that is now very complicated and often costly for users. Another measure designed to give users more control over the algorithms (and their lords). “Today the fundamental rights of European citizens are not adequately protected online. Platforms may for example decide to delete users ‘content, without informing the user or providing an opportunity for redress. This has strong implications for users’ freedom of speech. “, wrote the Commission in presenting the Act.
.