Governments make content removal requests to remove information from Google products, such as blog posts or YouTube videos. For purposes of this Report, we also count government requests that we review particular content to determine if it should be removed for violating a product's community guidelines or content policies.
There are limits to what this data can tell us. There may be multiple requests that ask for the removal of the same piece of content. In addition, in the first two reporting periods we haven't released specific numbers for countries that issued fewer than 10 requests, and that requested the removal of fewer than 10 items, due to technical constraints specific to those reporting periods. Similarly, if a government agency used a web form where we can't identify the party reporting the request to remove content, we generally have no way of including those reports in our statistics.
No. Our policies and systems are set up to identify and remove child pornography whenever we become aware of it, regardless of whether that request comes from the government. As a result, it's difficult to accurately track which of those removals were requested by governments, and we haven't included those statistics here. We counted requests for removal of all other types of content (e.g., alleged defamation, hate speech, impersonation).
The "removal request" numbers represent the number of requests we have received per country; the percentage of requests in response to which we removed content; and the number of individual items of content requested to be removed.
Some governments and government agencies choose to block specific services as a means of controlling access to content in their jurisdiction. The content removal numbers we've reported do not include any data on government-mandated service blockages. Our Traffic graphs show you when Google services have been inaccessible.
Yes. The statistics we report here do not include content removals that we regularly process every day in response to non-governmental user complaints across our products for violation of our content policies or community guidelines (for example, we do not permit hate speech in Blogger and other similar products). In many cases these requests result in the removal of material that violates local law, independent of any government request or court order seeking such removal.
There are many reasons we may not have removed content in response to a request. Some requests may not be specific enough for us to know what the government wanted us to remove (for example, no URL is listed in the request), and others involve allegations of defamation through informal letters from government agencies, rather than court orders. We generally rely on courts to decide if a statement is defamatory according to local law.
From time to time, we receive falsified court orders. We do examine the legitimacy of the documents that we receive, and if we determine that a court order is false, we will not comply with it. Here are some examples of fake court orders that we have received:
These observations are meant to highlight certain requests that we have received during each reporting period, along with some trends that we've noticed in the data, and are by no means exhaustive.
Prior to the January–June 2011 reporting period we were not tracking the reasons for removal requests at a very granular level. As a result of this, many requests were classified as "Other" instead of something more specific.
When we receive removal requests for AdWords, the requests typically only cite the URLs that allegedly violate the law or our policies. One URL can pertain to hundreds or thousands of ads. If we decide to remove ads in response to a request, we will look into the total number of ads that the request may affect.
Until the beginning of 2012, we counted the total number of ads removed (rather than the number of URLs or ads cited in the removal request). When we did not perform any removals in response to the request, we counted the number of URLs requested to be removed, so the number of items was lower.