It definitely sounds from the article that all this allows is that given their special "super flagger" status, is that videos they flag, whether one or "swaths", simply jump to the top of the "to be reviewed" queue. Presumably the same queue that normal individuals flagging videos use, and ultimately approved or rejected through the same mechanism.

So in a purely practical sense, basically "nothing changed" in terms of video accessibility, but the fact that it's special status alone might cause behavior to change just because they know a "super flagger" flagged the video.

Ideally for biggest "do no evil" effect, Google would hide the fact that a super flagger was the one that flagged this particular video from the reviewer, to allow an unbiased review.

I think it makes a certain amount of sense for government representatives, especially police, to get "direct service" for reviewing things that could be dangerous, or illegal. Perhaps a video on YouTube accidentally reveals the name/address of some in witness protection. I think it's fair for that to be immediately reviewed and addressed by Google. The question is, what other abuses of this privilege might it lead to? Might this open the door for not only fast review, but influencing the result of reviews?

Interesting ethical questions for sure.

It makes it sound like Google is humouring the Home Office a little.

I suppose the point of the "super-flagger" status is that whomever has that title is known by Google to not be a troll, who flags wildly and arbitrarily.

You mean a government can't troll? :/

I think a government is capable of trolling. I think it's less likely for a government to troll than an individual Internet user, in the traditional "trolling" sense.

Trolling isn't just "pissing off other users", it's "pissing off other users for the lulz". That's a very dumbed-down definition of trolling, too. I think it's unlikely that a government would piss anybody off just for the sake of it. I suspect they'd have motives to do with economic or social goals on some national or international level.

However, that doesn't mean that this alleged power can't and won't be abused in the way that a troll might abuse the flag power.

Sounds like the RIAA / various large publishers are still more powerful than the Home Office and fighting copyright infringement is still more important than fighting terrorism, since they can reportedly take down videos directly (and have often done so).

It's only more important because copyright holders currently pose far more of a threat to YouTube than "terrorism". Which, as much as I dislike both subjects, seems about accurate.

Yeah, it will be interesting to see what is actually taken down here. It would be nice if they did a chillingeffects.org thing but for the specific requests by the UK (including all the ones that were flagged but they ended up not taking down).

Reads to me like they gave a bunch of organizations access to a priority desk that screens flagged videos immediately, as a compromise between the normal flagging process and the takedown powers that some media companies have been given.

It's unclear whether Google is willing to ignore the flags outside of special cases, but I expect we'll find out next December.

Surprise twist: Google policy only allows them to review the relationship once per decade.

It sounds like it just allows the government to know within a few minutes whether Google will voluntarily remove a video. It allows them to know whether they have to pursue takedown for what they consider an urgent matter through legal channels.