Google in gang crime shame
GOOGLE was accused of putting lives at stake yesterday as it emerged that it has refused police requests to remove videos inciting knife and gun crime.
The internet giant’s YouTube service has taken down only 38 per cent of gang videos reported to it by the Metropolitan Police.
It means that not only do videos glorifying violence remain online but the gangsters posting them are able to earn an estimated £5,000 a month from advertisements on the site, from which Google also benefits.
Since Scotland Yard launched a unit to tackle gang violence online in 2015, officers have compiled a database of 876 ‘inflammatory’ videos that ‘raise the risk of violence’.
Of those, only 39 of the worst videos, where gang members openly threaten others, were flagged to YouTube for removal.
But Google has refused to comply in 62 per cent of the cases, taking down only 15 videos since the initiative began.
Yesterday London Mayor Sadiq Khan tore into YouTube for ‘glamorising gang culture’, citing four videos in which gangsters wearing balaclavas, scarves and masks brag about how they would murder rivals. In one
‘Prohibit videos that are abusive’
video, thugs wave a Rambo-style knife as they attempt to goad rivals, making gun signs to a soundtrack of violent rap music.
The four videos, which have been viewed more than 356,000 times, are estimated to have generated hundreds of pounds for London gangs via advertising.
Last night, the Mail found adverts for brands such as Lynx deodorant, watchmaker Christopher Ward and even an event for the BBC’s Great British Sewing Bee running alongside the videos.
Google makes most of its £72.6billion-ayear revenue from adverts, which it places automatically with computer technology. Most companies are unaware their adverts run alongside such material.
A YouTube spokesman said: ‘We prohibit videos that are abusive or promote violence. We work closely with organisations like the Metropolitan Police to understand local context and … where artistic expression escalates into real threats.’