Google is making a big push to get colleges and universities to take their various Google Apps for Education
For “free”, of course. And we all know who the product is on a “free” Google app, right?
The product is you.
And there’s the real story behind the “free” education apps–these apps are honeypots for data and in the case of education apps driving traffic to Google’s YouTube monopoly, the apps are honeypots for some very young users particularly in the K-12 school systems using Google Apps for Education. (See also “Google Apps for the Common Core” which seems to be a major focus of use cases for Google Apps for Education integrated into Common Core data collection mandates and testing.)
So from a programming point of view, YouTube appears to position itself as a substitute for college radio or college television. Google Apps for Education drive YouTube’s scalability on campus–with one big exception.
Do Google’s Hate Group Playlists Violate Campus Hate Speech Policies?
Google has been trying to tell advertisers that YouTube is the replacement for television, and I’m sure if you asked them. Google would also tell you that given the vast presence of music videos including official clips, user generated and cover videos, YouTube is also a replacement for radio.
If Google is pitching its Google education apps to colleges and universities and promoting its YouTube product on those apps, then Google is backdooring a competitor to thinly financed college radio stations in the form of its monopoly YouTube product.
With one big difference–YouTube can broadcast brand sponsored hate speech videos all the live long day, all of which would violate the university hate speech policies. And Google profits from hate by selling advertising against these videos, particularly on the lucrative search pages of YouTube–where there is no revenue split.
So what does this tell you? It seems pretty obvious that nobody is bothering for one second to filter any of this content and that it is intended to take advantage of the YouTube platform to scale the audience for hate. These groups even have their own cover videos:
And it’s not just the “bigots who rock” who Google education apps drive traffic to–there’s also many films of the well-known Holocaust denier David Irving:
Google will say what they always say about YouTube–they respond to “flagging” from the YouTube community to take down videos that offend “the community.” That is–if enough people–that is, the majority–don’t like the offensive stuff, they’ll take it down. This is, of course, why universities have hate speech rules in the first place and why “the majority” can no longer require segregated lunch counters. To protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
So how’s that flagging working out on the David Irving video:
So under Google’s rules, this video stays up and hate speech policies–not to mention laws–be damned.
Now if the same university’s college radio or television station were to establish a “bigots who rock” playlist, what do you suppose would happen?
So why should YouTube be treated any differently–particularly when the same university is driving traffic to YouTube through Google’s “free” education apps? The point being that if Google is going to push YouTube to colleges and universities, YouTube should comply with the same rules applicable to college radio and television. If they can’t come up with a better reason, like say human decency. Of course that might break the Internet.