MPs attack Google's web vetting record

Google's vice-president, Kent Walker, came under fire from MPs today after admitting that his company does not employ a single person to proactively vet online content and for failing to censor a YouTube video of a gang rape.
One member of the Commons culture, media and sport committee called Walker "objectionable" after he attempted to defend the mistake by YouTube, the popular video sharing website owned by Google, over the gang rape.
Walker admitted that footage of a gang rape, reported to be of a woman in south London being set upon by a group of teenagers, received 600 page views before it was taken down from YouTube last month.
He said that the incident was "clearly a mistake on our part", adding that it was one of a "tiny, tiny number of mistakes" when the company's record on censoring inappropriate content was good.
"Once flagged, more than 50% is removed within half an hour; a large majority is removed within an hour," Walker added, giving evidence to the select committee's inquiry into harmful content on the internet and in video games.
He also drew criticism from MPs on the committee after revealing that Google did not employ anyone to proactively monitor footage on YouTube.
Walker added that he was unable to disclose how many staff were currently paid by Google to reactively monitor footage flagged up by YouTube users.
His remarks prompted one committee member, Paul Farrelly, to describe Walker's defence as "incredible" and to say: "Do you know how absurd you are sounding?"
Another MP, Adam Price, went on to describe Walker's defence of his company as "deeply objectionable". He said: "It surely shows your system is completely inadequate. How can you defend that?"
Walker replied that "no system is perfect but in most cases we do get to these incidents quickly".
He added that 600 page views did not necessarily represent 600 individual viewers and went on to resist repeated calls from the committee for all submitted content to be pre-vetted, saying it would go against the spirit of the internet and stifle creativity.
"If you tried to take that vast amount of content and pre-screen all of it, it's neither efficient nor effective and would burden the process of creativity," Walker said.
"It's not a price for us I would be concerned about but a price for the user. You do not have a policeman on every street corner to stop things from happening, you have policemen responding very quickly when things do happen," he added.
Walker said that most material is not posted on YouTube for personal gain and that innocent footage posted online, such as film of a baby's first steps, would have to be scrutinised unnecessarily and at great cost.
He also defended Google's decision to allow the Chinese government to restrict content on the search engine in China.
Walker said there was a balance to strike between meeting the demands of the Chinese government and allowing his company to operate in the country.
He added that Google was promoting "free speech" in China and that it was preferable to operate there than to be banned.
Walker said that assessing the nature of content in each country where Google operated was "incredibly complicated".
He added that in Germany images of Nazi paraphernalia would be more offensive than in other countries, while in India content criticising a figure such as Mahatma Gandhi would be deemed far more offensive than elsewhere.