It's a worn tripe, but, "What could possibly go wrong?"
At least it's "flagger" status and not the power to directly remove.
Still feels like a slip along that slippery slope, though.
Amongst all the rest, there is the concern about "notification" transitioning into "obligation". You, Google, can no longer claim you were as yet unaware of a particular situation; we (the UK government) therefore now expect instant response -- and response in our favour.
In other areas of law, I gather the situation and a party's obligation to act in some manner can depend significantly upon what they are and are not aware of. I'm concerned that prioritizing the requests/demands of a government known for censorship tendencies may induce or create an obligation to cater to those tendencies.
At least it's "flagger" status and not the power to directly remove.
Still feels like a slip along that slippery slope, though.
Amongst all the rest, there is the concern about "notification" transitioning into "obligation". You, Google, can no longer claim you were as yet unaware of a particular situation; we (the UK government) therefore now expect instant response -- and response in our favour.
In other areas of law, I gather the situation and a party's obligation to act in some manner can depend significantly upon what they are and are not aware of. I'm concerned that prioritizing the requests/demands of a government known for censorship tendencies may induce or create an obligation to cater to those tendencies.