Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Accused Of Censorship
writes "According to WorldNetDaily, Youtube is engaging in censorship. A quote from the article summarizes well:
The popular video-sharing YouTube site, which is being purchased by Google for $1.65 billion, limited access to a political ad that mocks the Clinton administration's policy on North Korea, but contains no profanity, nudity or other factors generally thought objectionable." It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative
Right. Point out that there's a grain-of-salt aspect to it since the reporting organization is right-wing. I wonder if a similar comment would have survived to the slashdot front page if moveon.org complained that YouTube was blocking access to a video that criticized Bush's policy on Saudi Arabia (and was bereft of nudity, violence, etc)...
It *must* be election season. Between slashdot and digg I can hardly browse without stepping in politics.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Fowl! Is it necessary to state a source as 'conservative'. Rightists typically view sites like BBC and CNN as 'Liberal' while leftists view sites like Fox News as 'conservative'.
Most people can distinguish when any other site tends to lean in the direction they disagree with. Must we label conservative sources and only conservative sources?
I saw the hyper-idiot Michelle Malkin whining last week that YouTube was allowing "Islamofacists" to post hate videos, but YouTube had "gone Dhimmi" [I had to look it up too] and was blocking her innocent happy bunny fun videos telling people to run for the hills and shoot first if the Muslims are coming. YouTube is quite welcome to flag her group as unsuitable for children.
Oh You POS
I'm one of those conservative folks who was annoyed by this
And apparently 'one of those conservative folks that don't bother to check out the story first' before crying foul.
Well, as the other responder, Shrubsky, implies, there's more to it than greed.
Greed is just a function of conservatism, which revolves around the principle of evil. Greed is simply an attribute of conservatism because it is evil, in much the same way as, say, lying or hypocracy is.
I think you owe conservatives an apology for stating one of their principles completely out of context, as if it's the whole of conservatism, and that it doesn't have some principled basis.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
It was a joke, because "Wing Nut Daily" is a joke, as it exists as entertainment for the people who believe there is such a thing as the "liberal party line".
Your political identity is a not a religion, it does not make you a minority, you should not expect it to be protected from ridicule. Since you read a pejorative into the word "conservative", what context makes this simple statement of fact offensive by the addition of "just wee bit"? Does it denote persecution, resentment, or just mere contempt for the inferior? How did you infer that Hemos's intention is to flame?
What part of it was the stick, exactly? The deal amounted to "we'll give you billions of dollars in aid if you just put aside your nuclear material for a while". There wasn't even any requirement for them to give up the material they had so far produced, only that they place it under "international oversight". That's the equivalent of telling an armed gang that you'll pay them ten million dollars a year if they just put their weapons in a closet and let your buddy Joe take a look at them every now and then. There's no stick, it's just a flat out bribe, and a pointless one at that as it just puts off the problem for future generations to deal with.
That's Clintons legacy. He bribed North Korea into pretending to be nice, he bombed Iraq without accomplishing anything other than expending the US cruise missile arsenal and killing lots of innocent people, he ignored the terrorism problem which became apparent after the 1993 WTC attack and the USS Cole bombing, and he destroyed Serbia while aiding a well known terrorist organization (the KLA). In other words, he wielded both military and economic might in a totally incompetent fashion, accomplishing nothing other than wasting money and lives in an attempt to appear competent. I'm not a huge fan of Bush, but the guy has been demonized beyond any semblance of reality, while Clinton gets a free pass for his total incompetence. It's sad. At least the right wing in the US can laugh at Bush and point out his mistakes. I've yet to hear a democrat say anything bad about Clinton.
From the article "The commentator noted YouTube has "dismembered conservative and politically incorrect speech" in the past, pulling videos critical of Islam and even banning popular conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, who is also a WND columnist."
I have yet to read a column by Malkin that could not be chartacterized as hate speech. Hardly a standard by which Youtube could be judged. I think even Hitler would be ashamed to have Malkin as a PR person. Cause that's one filtlhy lady, to put it mildly.
I always find it amusing that ultra-rightwingers like this squawk about cencorship. They LOVE cencorship. They would be perfectly happy to KILL for the right to cencor things they dislike.
These retards believe that as long as something is politically incorrect, it must be good. Pro torture, against abortion, pro death sentence, against healthcare, pro cencorship (except when it's their stuff) , against flagburning, pro big government, against taxes, for budget deficits, pro poverty, pro wealth, anti middle class. Luckily for them, boh houses of congfress, as well as the white house are on the same page as these ridiculous parodies of Hitler and Goering.
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.