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

Comments

doesn't matter

[Hawkxor]

Wouldn't surprise me too much if this were true; but in either case the audience of youtube is so predominately young and radically liberal, that even if there was more conservative-friendly material on that site it would all get rated out of existence pretty quickly, methinks.

What's wrong with being conservative?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative

So, unless someone toes a liberal party line their opinion has no value?

Re:What's wrong with being conservative?

[0xdeadbeef]

So, unless someone toes a liberal party line their opinion has no value?

So, unless someone believes in a world that isn't defined by cartoonish political theater, they lack the intelligence to understand a joke of wry understatement?

It's also worth

[OverlordQ]

It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative

It's also worth pointing out that there's plenty of videos of people stripping on cam, yet none of them are censored.

Manson in 08

[roster238]

Did you know he was running in 08? He is a Democrat with a plan. No matter how disturbed at least he has a plan.

Right wing crap is objectionable

[toby]

...any intelligent person who watched the ad would understand :)

That smell in the air this morning isn't napalm (for once) -- it's desperation among Republican lunatics.

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss!

[hcob$]

On top of that, they are crying about something that is really not important to today's politics. Bill Clinton is sooo yesterday's news, and while I'm not in favour of censoring anti-Clinton satire, this seems not very newsworthy.

Of course if it was the other way around, conservatives flagging a liberal satire of Bush, it would be in the NY Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and someone would likely get sued for it.

However, I agree, the poster did need to point out that a conservative group was doing the pointing and talking this time.

Harmfull to minors?, I think so.

[Vellmont]

If the far right can deem anything containing boobies "harmful to minors", why can't I deem anything that contains idiotic crap harmful to minors? I'd love to see Limbaugh, Hannity, or O'Reilly labled as harmful and "not appropriate for anyone under 18". In fact I know a kid who faked laryngitis to stay home and phone in on Limbaugh's talk show. Yup, that's right, Limbaugh is encouraging truancy among our children!

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss!

[From A Far Away Land]

"Of course if it was the other way around, conservatives flagging a liberal satire of Bush, it would be in the NY Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and someone would likely get sued for it."

I don't think that's true, or were you being satirical?

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss!

[gfxguy]

The bomb that went off was likely not even nuclear.

As for "can't negotiate...," what's your alternative?

Are you implying there's no alternative?

The alternative is to completely cut this regime off from the rest of the world, stop giving them money and other aid, and perhaps low-yield nuke all the artillery that they have pointed at Seoul.