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
It's not YouTube per say, it's people flagging the video as inappropriate. That causes the restriction to be put on. Once YouTube became aware of that, they immediately removed the warning. I just watched the video on YouTube.
http://religiousfreaks.com/The video is up and no longer flagged. A video becomes flagged when enough users mark it and then a YouTube employee will either verify it should be removed/flagged. In this case they removed the initial flag and kept the video.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Youtube is a "private" site. It can, and obviously will, censor whatever the hell it will.
There is no constitution on the Internet. There is no free speech. There is only the right to say whatever the hell you want, and hope someone will listen to you. If they don't, too bad.
That said, I don't approve of censoring anything. I think it's cowardly and serves no real purpose other than to shield people from things they may not necessarily want to be shielded from. But it IS the right of youtube to chose what they want to have on their site, and what the don't want. Obviously, they don't want people being overly political. That's their call.
Deal with it.
Blog -
So once again, nothing to see here, please move along.
Also there is the forthcoming YouTube AntiPiracy system. or as one wit put it: YouTube is preparing to implement new technology necessary to make it suck
A technology designed to detect copyright material could give YouTube a needed dose of legal legitimacy and calm any concerns Google Inc. has about spending $1.65 billion on the Internet video site. But that same technology could hurt YouTube's edgy appeal.
While YouTube is known as the place to find almost any kind of video clip, recent agreements with high-profile content creators require YouTube to deploy an audio-signature technology that can spot a low-quality copy of a licensed music video or other content. YouTube would have to substitute an approved version of the clip or take the material down automatically.
Analysts said that stepped-up monitoring by entertainment companies raises the likelihood that YouTube fans won't find what they're used to getting -- and will go searching for the next online video rebel. [...]
Some analysts doubt the screening technology will be foolproof. For example, detecting someone singing a copyright song on a homemade video could be difficult because the sound would not exactly match the original recording.
etc. Nevermind Homeland Security, if you want to be paranoid.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
"Perfectly OK to show our soldiers getting killed, but they'll be damned if they allow that anti-democrat ad," added "Spaceman Spiff" in a "Newsbusters online dialogue. "This [is] very scary to me. However, not surprising. But, now that they are owned by Google, we'll certainly be seeing a lot more of this censoring."
let's see this quote from the article
Sheffield said he believes the intention of YouTube's "censorship squad" was to limit access. Even though the same video may be available somewhere else, such as the Drudge Report, "lots of non-political and moderate folks don't read Drudge, but they might hear about the video from a friend and try to look it up in the search engine, only to be foiled in their attempts to decide whether it was truly 'objectionable.'"
and another gem of reporting
Bloggers also reported that the Council on American Islamic Relations has in the past taken steps to have anti-radical Islamist videos pulled from the YouTube site, and Malkin said she was told her video was pulled because it was "inappropriate."
This article is an opinion piece, it looks nothing like a factual article. It uses quotes form unknown bloggers as evidence. It presents only one side of the story. It does not try for even a second to be objective. For a factual article, it does not know when the movie was posted, how long it was freely availble, how long it was restricted and when it came unrestricted again. It makes a big deal out of nothing because youtubes policy is to investigate after someone marks a video as objectionable. These idiots would be all over youtube if they ran a different policy because children could be potentially exposed to nudity.
This article is about a censorship that is not even a censorship but the normal processes at google. This article simply attempts to resell the story to the American public that the media has liberal bias.
Is your terror cell living in terror? Is your safe-house not so safe? If so, read the New York Times, the jihad journal.
YouTube is not, in my mind at least, capable of censoring. YouTube is a private enterprise, not the Government. You have no First Amendment recourse against YouTube. As there is no recourse, there is no censoring.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
"However, after a brief period of accessibility, the verification page started appearing on YouTube. It asked that: "This video may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community. To view this video, please verify you are 18 or older by logging in or signing up." Today the verification page on the spoof was removed."
I then checked the YouTube Terms of Use; please note Item C below,
Currently, you can readily view the video in question without having to assert that you are over 18. It is most likely that someone objected, YouTube placed the restriction, and then removed it after reviewing the content. So after careful review, I stand by my original assertion about WorldNetDaily, but I agree that YouTube did temporarily censor the video in accordance with their policy.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
They have banned several Conservative video makers, including Michelle Malkin and HotAir. They have done so recently, despite carrying the videos for over a year without any issues.
Now, Google, the company that bought them, has refused to carry Michelle, LFG, and others as NEWS sites based on the fact that they blog, not present new news. Here are the letters from Google:
And LGF:
BUT they allow several other blogs to be indexed as news, as Charles from LGF points out:
Other sites of questionable news worthyness but indexed as news: Democratic Underground, Uruknet.info, and Dailykos.
Now if you want to hold yourself out as a "News" indexing service that only indexes news and claim no bias, you have serious issues. Lets point out that Google donates almost exclusively to Democrat candidates and causes and you have a clear bias.
A clear bias when you claim to have none is a problem
I am resonably convinced, barring YouTube or Google coming out and saying it, that they scrubbed the videos as part of the merger deal. As in, no scrub, no deal.
Source for above info: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001431.htm . Yes yes, she is involved and has an axe to grind, but she also puts together the facts nicely.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
I cut people all kinds of slack if they're trying to be funny.
I think calling WND "wee bit conservative" is funny, because it's such an understatement.
WND is not just conservative, it is stupidly and blindly so. WND is an embarrassment to the conservative tradition of Buckley and Strauss. It is extremely low-quality and sloppy. It's sort of an Ann Coulter style site - shoot first, research later.
I mean, it's less accurate than the New York Times, and that takes some serious negligence.
That's Clintons legacy. He bribed North Korea into pretending to be nice
Do you have a better idea? Do you propose restarting the war? What stick could be wielded (as opposed to the carrot)?
he bombed Iraq without accomplishing anything other than expending the US cruise missile arsenal and killing lots of innocent people
Are you kidding? He kept Saddam nuetered. The Clinton enforced no fly zones (enforced by the bombings you speak of) allowed the formation of an independant kurdish government, the very same kurds that were slaughtered by Saddam... Saddam's military was worthless (see pre-insurgency military results in spring of 2003) largely because of Desert Fox and the sanctions.
he ignored the terrorism problem which became apparent after the 1993 WTC attack and the USS Cole bombing
He was far from ignoring the problem, he just understands (as everyone should now, after the WMD fiasco) that intelligence is not infoulable, and he therefor set the bar high for evidence deemed necissary to justify a military responce. Not striking at Bin Laden was the result of lack of appropriote opportunity, rather than ignorance. And while I realize that you are not supportin gBush in your post, I feel I should point out that prior to 9/11 Bush was doind far less about terrorism than Clinton was doing.
he destroyed Serbia while aiding a well known terrorist organization (the KLA)
I am no fan of this.
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.
Overall, I think you are being far too critical, and for the record, I am a democrat, and though I was too young to vote at the time of the Serbia action, I opposed it.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Actually, my take on it is that the conservative minority have gotten so fed up with the leftist leaning of \. that they finally hit the point where they're not going to silently put up with it anymore. In my experience, it's the leftists who are immediately/always ranting about this or that cause, while conservatives are busy with everyday life and would really rather not be bothered with politics at all most of the time and thus only speak up when it gets intolerable. But like I said, that's just MHO.
Constitutionally Correct
First, censoring is more than just putting up a warning that the content might not be suitable for certain viewers, which is all YouTube did, according to TFA.
Second, also according to TFA, the warning was automatically added once someone offended by the content flagged it as offensive. The warning wasn't permanent, but was just tacked on until YouTube could have a real person review the video to check if it was accurately flagged. Once reviewed, the warning could removed, left in place, or the video could be deleted.
When I just went to watch, there was no warning. This means either the video got to the head of the review queue by normal processes and was determined to have been improperly flagged, or the tempest in a teapot got it jumped to the head of the queue where the determination was made.
As for users flagging it as offensive... I made a political joke in one post at Slashdot and had so many people hitting it with downmods and upmods, I lost my posting privileges for three weeks (a "timeout") for getting too many downmods in a specific time period (almost all from that ONE post). So it's VERY believable that enough left-leaning people would flag such a video as offensive as to trip whatever limit was needed to get the warning placed. I'm also sure something equally offensive to right-leaning people would be equally flagged.
But in the long run, the warning gets on, the video goes into a reviewing queue, and a human at YouTube eventually reviews it. But with the size of their staff, the size of their traffic, and the potential number of videos getting flagged daily, it's highly probable that they'd take a couple of days for it to reach the top of the queue.
Seems that this is more a deliberate publicity ploy. By fooling people who don't actually pay close attention to the facts, they made it sound like the video was unfairly censored by YouTube itself (or its staff) as opposed to going through a standard process. Then those people, with a sense of moral outrage, tell everyone they know... getting the video hundreds of thousands of future viewings.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic