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
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
YouTube is censoring Slashdot now, too! Aieyeeee!
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
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/Bad, if you consider YouTube a news or public information site.
Good, possibly, if they are pandering to their target audience to maximize viewership. You don't get equal time on the Daily Show either.
And yeah, I'm one of those conservative folks who was annoyed by this; but hey, its a entertainment site.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Frankly, after reading this, I must say that this is more an opinionated editorial than an objective piece of news. I'm shocked that
My work here is dung.
I seem to remember a certain video game simulation of the Clinton era whitehouse being featured on YouTube. I think it ended with "You lose. It's your wife!"
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 -
Since slashdot utilizes the same method of user-censorship of comments, does this mean slashdot is accusing itself of censorship by having this article on the frontpage?
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
So once again, nothing to see here, please move along.
Better check out your Categories of Understanding, pal! "Oh, it's just a conservative site making these complaints." Pedophiles, ax murderers, conservatives... Tell me again about these high ideals, diversity, freedom of expression and the like. Oh yeah! For approved thought only. CW
only the government can censor anything. when a firm makes a decision to purposefully not provide content, that is not censorship. it might not be a policy you or I agree with, fine. every time I hear so and so is "censoring", it makes my blood boil. if you don't like waht a company does, such as Walmart not selling certain cd's, DON"T SHOP THERE, if you don't like YouTube's policies, open you own damn website. when the government says you can't do those things, then cry censorship. until then, just say YouTube made a corporate decision...
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Yes, it's important that we only censor based on one arbitrary set of factors than a different arbitrary set of factors.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Some idiot marked Harold Pinter's lecture inappropriate aswell. I had to register on youtube just to be able to watch that video.
The video is highly critical of the USA, but I don't see anything inappropriate in it.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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)...
Of course it would, and it would have resulted in a barrage of "OMG 1984" comments in the discussion.
Yes, I just watched it.
I don't know about anyone else, but that video is very persuasive. Its intelligent and serious perspective on the issues has made me realise how the current situation with North Korea is actually the fault of the Democrats. I suggest everyone watches it to see the quality of discourse on the Republican side of this debate.
You fail. He said "nothing is removed" without being reviewed first.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative
Yes, like Charles Manson was a wee bit disturbed.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Well duh, who would want to censor that? I'd take that over depressing worlds-gonna-end crap.
.
Also, if you disagree with someone on politics, facts don't matter.
The basis of this story has to do with web site users not being able to come to terms with a fairly simple flagging system that can be worked around by logging into a free account. There are similar problems with the craigslist site references to staff actions when user flags get content yanked. Web sites should clearly explain why content is posted, rated, or pulled, but like most other web content features this is a business opportunity that the market may or may not demand or value. Only time will tell, and trying to force the issue isn't likely to work.
I'll save this post as a memento.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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"
Ok, just kidding...
100% censorship free is not only impossible, its not acceptable. I'm not saying we should be censoring things we don't agree with, but its inevitable that things considered offensive will eventually be censored by the community in one form or another. Remember, just because you have free speech doesn't mean you get to stick it in my face.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
If there already censoring profanity and nudity what's wrong with censoring other content.
Personally I don't think they should be censoring anything.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Does anyone else get the feeling that the Slashdot userbase is more conservative than the rest of the population? Bush's approval rating hovers around 35%, but the number of uprated pro-Bush comments on recent political posts is astonishing. Apparently, intelligence and critical thinking don't go hand in hand. Economics is always debatable, but how does any thinking person look at the Bush foreign or social policy and see anything but corruption, insanity, and abject failure?
LOAD "SIG",8,1
"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."
:%s/youtube/slashdot/g
Hmm...
I know, cheap shot, but it was too easy.
I have suffered from being misunderstood, but I would have suffered a hell of a lot more if I had been understood.
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.
I swear I didn't know it was loaded...
It could've been flagged as inappropriate for the comments, not the video. Several of them are calling for the assassination of Clinton.
"What's wrong with being conservative? One word: greed."
OK, I've already posted something on this thread that'll make me unpopular, so why stop now?
being conservative != greed
To a conservative, wanting to take someone else's money is being greedy. To a liberal, wanting to keep your own money is being greedy.
I have suffered from being misunderstood, but I would have suffered a hell of a lot more if I had been understood.
These are Republicans, not conservatives. It's really not wise to confuse to the two. Republicans only believe in rights for Repbulicans. Anyone who's not Republican (or voting for them) should not be entitled to any rights, especially the right to vote.
You might think my comments are a little extreme, but here's a transcript from Politically Incorrect where Ann Coulter specifically states women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they tend to vote for Democrats.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
They definitely managed to get a lot more PR than such a tiny, silly, thing deserved.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Like Slashdot could be described as just a wee bit liberal?
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
Every major news organization has asked YouTube why the video got flagged as inappropriate. YouTube has not given a reason.
If the answer was as simple as the user community flagging the video, why don't they just say that?
Except it was not a joke. That line in the /. summary was probably put there for one purpose: to flame.
/. to defend WND.
/., you "lack intelligence"?
Either to flame the liberals to come out and say "yeah right, curse you WND."
Or to flame (those few) conservatives on
If I may paraphrse the GP, I'll now ask YOU: if you don't toe the party line here on
Computational Chemistry products and services.
Yes, it is. It is a salient addition to the discussion. You may argue which way certain mainstream media outlets lean, but when the source is particularly partisan (say, the Washington Times, or The American Prospect) it should be noted that there is celarly an agenda behind the outrage.
/. ran a story about new scientific research that differences in language usage could affect the way you view food and the total amount of calories your body feels it needs, would you be curious? If the editor noted that the story was currently running in the Weekly World News, would that put the story in perspective? I think so.
If
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Than the wide acceptance of Michael Moore films as 'fact', to know that this would be true.
So, unless someone toes a liberal party line their opinion has no value?
When someone who is politically motivated makes an assertion that is not true, then their opinion on the matter has no value.
It's not what I would call a "liberal party line" it's more a "human beings with an ounce of common sense line".
Of course, if you don't like it you are free to go with the conservative party line that it's all a conspiracy by "the liberal media".
One should always consider the source when reading articles. I don't think it's unreasonable that the summary points out the possible conservative bias of the source since most people here have probably never heard of this source.
/. you can filter most of the political articles. Turn off the politics and YRO sections. Your problem is solved.
Here on
Developers: We can use your help.
The video is plainly accessible.
that Slashdot is just a wee bit liberal.
If you're surprised, you're not paying attention.
They banned CONSERVITVE blogger Michelle Malkin. Why was that? (I am asking here, I really don't know) Even the (usually liberal) New York Times was very sympathic to the censoring of Malkin.
Nice! Slashdot is now entering the field of discriminating against conservative news sources by tagging them as such. Good idea, folks! After all, we know that liberalism is 99% of time correct, while conservatism is 99% of the time wrong. Our teachers in high-school and college, who made it sure we learnt such an obvious fact of nature, wouldn't lie to us, nor would MTV, or the NYT, would they?
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Actually, *informing* others that someone or some site has what you consider to be a "historical political bias" is not a legitimate act. It's a judgment call, and one that a news source ought not to make. As you said yourself, "They said it, and anybody can read it." So, let people reading the article on WND find out for themselves what bias it has - don't "figure it out for them." To be clear, I would agree with the assessment in the Slashdot post. But it's not relevant. The original story, if you check the facts, was actually a relevant story about a mistake that YouTube made and has since corrected.
Google made massive contributions to the George Soros party (those guys we call democrats) in the last elections. It's obviously an interested party (oops!).
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative
What kind of fucking excuse is that? Is the editor insinuating that it's okay to censor and limit the speech of conservatives? That it's okay to say anything you want if you're a liberal, but if you're a conservative you should not have free speech?
The new progressive definition of Free Speech: "the freedom to express any opinion you want, so long as it's a progressive opinion."
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Take the facts you reported, that WND also reported:
1.) YouTube limited access to a video because of users flagging it.
2.) YouTube determined the flagging to be incorrect and removed it.
3.) WND reported on this fact.
Now, from this, they derive the opinion that YouTube (not YouTube users, but the company itself) is censoring content, despite the fact that the article itself states that YouTube removed the flag on review. That's where they went off the rails, and thus where being a reputable news source fell aside to conservative bias.
Virg
I'm willing to bet that getting it posted on Slashdot got far more PR for both WorldNetDaily AND the movie than anything done on their site alone would've.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
" Yes, marking that video as inappropriate is terrible. How can a lecture by a nobel prize winner be inappropriate?" I have had the unfortunate experience of listening to a lecture by Jimmy Carter. !!!! Not inappropriate but dam boring as hell !!!!
*--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*
The censorship comes from the culture of the users at YouTube. It works the same way in real life verifying the importance of the 1st amenendment. Movies that draw full theaters in NY and LA bomb when released nation wide. Pro-Abortion activists have poor results speaking in southern towns. Bush avoids the NAACP convention, Clinton avoids predominately white churches. While I don't use youtube, I suspect the audience is not friendly to content they don't agree with. I suspect Google and YouTube want everyone to participate, but like slashdot unpopular opinions get shouted down.
If you read carefully, you will notice that the video was actually censored AFTER having been flagged, and the only way it can be censored is by a YouTube employee. So...their facts about what happened are quite correct - YouTube did indeed censor the video for a period of time.
Liberalism is only right 85 to 90 percent of the time.
Oh, and management of NYT tends to be rather conservative,
and they lie too.
(sound of cogs turning).
Okay so I'm kidding. Not sure to what extent tho.
I'm assuming a bunch of pro-jihad people banded together and complained enough to get her anti-jihad videos removed from YouTube.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Just wanted to say thanks for an intelligent, if obviously conservative, attempt at real discussion.
Clinton wasn't President. I guess that's irrelevant for political nitpickers.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Anyway, you can tell a lot about the readers of WND from the shit being peddled by the banner ads. Nuke alert keychains, gold investments, books trashing Islam, adopt a child for Jesus, send a bible to China etc. I had to laugh at this Google ad though - "Grow A+ brain in 30 days ... Proven on CNN, NBC Today, CBS This Morning "
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
I realize this may seem pedantic but it's worth pointing out (again): censorship is restriction of speech by government actions. YouTube is under no obligation to host anything it doesn't want to. If YouTube decides it doesn't want any videos from Jews, well, that's their right as a private entity (a status which will change when Google acquires them).
rooooar
(Score:1, Flamebait)
Help! Help! I'm being censored! (According to WorldNetDaily's definition of censorship, anyway)
Now, hopefully the GGP has some idea of why we find WND's comments laughable. It's not that it's a conservative or liberal bias, it's that the bias prevents it from seeing the truth and reporting it in a way that leaves readers with a fair impression of what's going on.
Yes, the fact that it's conservative biased is relevent here, and is a reason to ignore it. Not because of the direction of the bias, but because of the bias. Because of the framing. To describe truth, you need to be prepared to avoid an agenda. That doesn't mean you can't say that someone has committed an evil act simply because there's a political dimension, but it does mean that your words have to be appropriate. WND frequently fails that test. It leaves readers with a false impression, because it allows hyperbole to get the better of it. It shouldn't have had a link on Slashdot's front page.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
For those in this thread who claim there's something wrong with pointing out the source's demonstrated bias, please consider this thought experiment: if the folks who put up one of the 9/11 conspiracy "documentaries" started screaming bloody murder about how YouTube had censored their videos, would it be somehow illegitimate to note that they're conspiracy nuts? I don't think so, especially since that trait is relevantly related to the very charges they are making; that is, they are claiming their political messages are being unfairly suppressed by an authority they think is thereby exhibiting its own bias.
Some people here are complaining about this because they say it will make people form (negative) presuppositions about the value of the information they're about to receive on the basis of presuppositions about the character of the source. I happen to think the idea underlying this criticism is wrong-headed. You should make presuppositions, you need to make presuppositions, and in all cases, you do make presuppositions whenever you're about to receive any information. The issue is not to eliminate them all (an infinite and impossible task), but to recognize them for what they are--namely, hypotheses--and treat them as such. (For me, that means to acknowledge them as shaping expectation and as open to revision.)
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
Is your terror cell living in terror? Is your safe-house not so safe? If so, read the New York Times, the jihad journal.
It's also worth pointing out that there's plenty of videos of people stripping on cam, yet none of them are censored.
Oh yeah, prove it. With links. Lots of links. Please, cute women only.
Learn to love Alaska
The first amendment only guarantees that the US government cannot take action to silence speech.
Whether you agree with YouTube or not... they are completely within their constitutional rights to remove any content that they please.
You are guaranteed to say what you want... but no one (and no corporate entity) is under any obligation to give you a forum for your speech.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
They do it all the time. James Carville makes the rounds quite often.
It's called biased reporting, and by knowing the political alignment of the reporting organization you can make a better determination of what the truth is.
In this case, YouTube isn't censoring anyone. YouTube USERS flagged the video as inappropriate and YouTube administrators CLEARED that flag. So YouTube is fighting AGAINST censorship. But it draws a much larger crowd with sensational headlines like "YouTube Censors".
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
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.
You only have to read the words of the article that you link to realise Google weren't "censoring" anything. It was a change in their stat gathering that affected all content. Their informed and reasonable response told the complainant as much. The problem of course is that Prison planet, Alex Jones and his viewer / listeners thrive on paranoid and irrational conspiracy shite. So it's no wonder that an appeal to their reason had no effect. They have none.
I guess we shouldn't inform people from now on that, hey, this news source might be a little more than biased. You want right-leaning bias, check out FOX News. You want in-your-face political agenda pushing, check out WND. This article should have never made it to the front page, especially if the people are too stupid to figure out how YouTube works. Nothing was censored here.
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
Youtube is a "private" site. It can, and obviously will, censor whatever the hell it will.
Almost. The problem dates back to the Stratton v. Prodigy and Cubby v. Compuserve cases. Increasing censorship of content indicates increased control over content, and was ruled as changing the legal status of the entity from a content distributor, to a content publisher, and thus making them much more liable for anything in the content. This court ruling was later modified by 47 USC 230 (one of the few parts of the CDA that survived the SCOTUS's glare), which says that no "interactive computer service" may be considered the publisher of any content provided by someone else; and that action in good faith to restrict access to objectionable material can't make them civilly liable for anything.
The problem is that selectively censoring only one set of political opinions might make either a judge or jury very skeptical about the "good faith", weakening a critical legal protection. This doesn't make it illegal... just very, very risky.
IAmNotALawyer. I suspect this is reason for anyone planning to do some censorship to talk over the matter with their lawyer.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
but contains no profanity, nudity or other factors generally thought objectionable
If you filter out content based on profanity, isn't that also censorship?
What is objectionable in one person's opinion is just entertaining in another person's opinion.
Obviously, someone found the political mockery to be objectionable. So they censored it, just like they censor out the nekkid breasts.
What I am getting at is this: youTube has always practiced censorship, and we have always been okay with it. Someone is just upsed over what, specifically, is being censored.
Sorry, I don't want to see 325lb. Wanda who thinks she's one sexy b1tch shaking what her momma (and 25 years of McDonalds) gave her.
However, when Demi Moore, Yasmen Bleeth, Hedi Klum, et. al. start stripping, then I'll be on YouTube in a heartbeat.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
when people summarize the situation nicely thereby making all further discussion redundant.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
I heard that videos of soldiers being killed are being copied from anti-US propaganda sites to general US video sites (although I have not tried to verify this). Should somthing like this "be allowed" or censored. This isnt a clearly defined legal boundary like underage sex videos. I dont have a firm opinion on this yet.
That was a bona fide use of "memento". The grandparent was simply making the de facto statement that using Latin in modern language is still the status quo and he used the word ad hoc.
Is that an ad hominem attack per se?
XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-U
"Toe a liberal party line"
Is this a reference to the toe-sucking scandle involving Dick Morris? Funny if it is...
Apparently it's is flamebait to point out someone is entirely in error because they didn't check out the story (YouTube staff didn't actually censor the content at all - as it says in TFA, which apparently no one has read).
At the same time, it's not flamebait for the OP to say (falsely) that it was flagged by staff YouTube and then post about how, as a conservative he was angry about this terrible thing (even though that thing didn't happen because the allegation was of course, not true).
Indeed.
So, unless someone toes a liberal party line their opinion has no value?
Works for me!
I kid, I kid...
Seriously, though, if WorldNutDaily said that the sun was up, I'd look to make sure. Occasionally they make sense, but usually they're just a cog in the conservative culture of complaint.
Make me aerodynamic in the evening air
Well, flagging a video is very easy in Youtube no matter what the content. Mark as inappropriate (and tell your friends to do the same), and it will likely soon after be flagged for 18+ audiences. Perhaps if it is politically extreme (or pornographic, etc.) for the few who end up moderating the videos, then they will be removed.
There's no way YouTube or Google could track that many videos as thousands are probably marked inappropriate each day. Even some of the most popular Google Videos (top 20) shoot to the top despite bordering on pornography (or perhaps because they are), before someone removes it from the listing (except for those who opt to turn off SafeSearch presumably).
Youtube has turned into a dumping ground for everything, and the extreme or titillating have a tendency to filter their way to the top of the list...
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
So, unless someone toes a liberal party line their opinion has no value?
As they say... The facts have a liberal bias.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
It's also interesting to note that their logic here is one of "argumentum ad populum". i.e. lots of people have viewed this video, therefore it must be true, and it becomes more true the more people view it. Therefore, in order to suppress the truth, Google have to conceal how many people have viewed it. (It is also taken for granted that all who view it are convinced of its truth.) And so, the conspiracy nut believes, their crusade towards revealing the truth draws ever nearer.
Naturally, as conspiracy nuts, there's no point trying to discuss opposing facts and reason with them, as this is just further evidence of the all pervading conspiracy. But no matter how many people view their video, it cannot make fact the fantasies of the foolish and ignorant. And the conspiracy in their heads will never cease, because that is what makes it so fascinating to them. If their suspicions were ever, amazingly, proven correct, there will always be another conspiracy within the conspiracy to keep the ball rolling for them.
Google bomb FTW.
Slashdot was late to the game. It's already been posted to Drudge and to the front page of Digg.
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
Did you even bother read the parent post before Replying with your uninformed opinion?
It dosn't look like it so lets go over the main points together, Ok.
It's not YouTube
I REALLY think this bit speeks for itself but it seems I to need to point it out to you.
it's people flagging the video as inappropriate. That causes the restriction to be put on
If you had EVER gone to YouTube.com you would see that under each video are 5 links "Save to Favorites", "Add to Groups", "Share Video", "Blog Video" and "Flag as Inappropriate" Now if anyone dosn't like a video they can just click the last link and it will be "Flagged" putting a warning screen in before loading the video page and alerting the YouTube.com staff to it, letting them make a decision from an objective point of view.
they[YouTube] immediately removed the warning Now Here Is where you really baffle me.
In a 38 word post you completely skip over more than a THIRD of it as made obvious with the comment Disappointing indeed that the "flagged" content wasn't reviewed by YouTube and simply left be
Disappointing indeed that a slashdot reader can't even be bothered to read and understand 38 words in a row...
In conclusion sir
You Fail
This isn't a question of republicans vs democrats. It's a question of "is YOUTUBE censoring material based on political lines". What some other company may have done is irrelevant. If you want to talk about censorship in general based on political lines, I find that left wing censorship is much more prevalent, especially in universities/colleges, but that also is irrelevant to the topic of discussion. I would have simply modded you off-topic, but I can't since I already posted a comment in this thread earlier.
Since when does /. care about censorship? Are you f'n kidding me? Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle "Black"...or "Troll" in this case! Give me a frickin break and find some integrity!
God, this place is starting to read like a Yahoo news group.
The right wing nut jobs who are labeled "conservative" are anything but. They are right wing nut jobs.
The left wing nut jobs who are labeled "liberal" are anything but. They are left wing nut jobs.
Conservative and liberal. Why do you keep using those words; I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Jesus H Christ on a popsicle stick, I used to come here to get away from that crap. It's like when so called conservatives write in and complain in "Scientific American" about the magazine's "liberal bias", what with presenting the current scientific state of understanding about some issue that has been politicized.
Leave your politics and religion at the door, thank you. You can pick them up on your way out.
WTF happened to the U.S in the last 10 years? Sure, there's backwards moves all the time. But this was a stampede. I mean, I realize that stupidity, instant gratification, rudeness, and amorality has become all the rage but give me a break, a little reflective thought and consider STFU as a valid course of actrion.
but the Republican-owned media company saw the ad and said they didn't like it so they canceled the contract -- despite having put up much more extreme pro-republican billboards.
So they should have been forced to put up a billboard of something that they didn't agree with? Do billboard companies qualify as a similar media channel to radio and tv stations, in that they must allow equal time for political parties? They don't use a chunk of the public spectrum, but they might have a use contract with governments for the land next to roads? I'm not sure, but if so, then what they did is wrong. But if it's a private company without these requirements, they might not be forced to put these advertisements on their billboards. It isn't cool, but it wouldn't be illegal.
If there are no other billboard companies in town that have close to the same reach to the audience as the one they tried initially, then maybe there are some serious anti-trust issues they should look into.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
WorldNetDaily, a far-right conservative web site, is basically complaing that a bunch of "liberal" users flagged this video inappropriate so the "18 and over" interstital was added, requiring users to sign in to see the video. It was NEVER removed from the YouTube. Eventually, after A DAY OR TWO the video was reviewed by someone on the tiny YouTube staff and the "18 and over" interstital was removed.
The context here is that WorldNetDaily, and other conservative blogs and sites, have been complaining for months that while anti-Muslim/white power propoganda ("death to ragheads", "Islam = Satanism", etc.) has consistently been taken down for being offensive, jihadi propoganda has often remained on the site. They don't claim that the jihadis are responsible, but "liberals" in the United States and Europe are somehow "supporting the terrorists".
More sane people realize that calling people "devils" and "ragheads" is inappropriate and offensive. Jihadi propoganda is often newsworthy, showing attacks on Western forces for example, and because it isn't often see in the USA it has legitimate news value. To see anti-Islam propoganda you onloy have to turn on Fox News.
Personally, I don't think that the anti-Muslim/white power propoganda should be censored. It only makes it's creators look bad, much like Holocaust denial.
Slashdot is now entering the field of discriminating against conservative news sources by tagging them as such.
It's called context, shit-for-brains. It's like if some pro-alien-invasion newspaper said that NASA was hiding information about aliens. You would think differently about it if the Wall St. Journal said the same, thing, no? It's still up to the reader to decide if the information is reputable or not. You'll notice that the editor's comment simply says that the article comes from a periodical that is a "wee bit conservative", not that it is conservative trash (which it is). Nor did they outright reject the story submission, which I suppose you could spin as "censorship".
Fact is, the conservative press has pounded this idea into the heads of conservatives that the "mainstream press", which is arguably conservative itself, censors and distorts the truth in favor of "the liberals". This is a fabrication in order to make sure you get your news from the vetted talking heads-- the channels and conservative talkers who stick to the party-line. You sure as shit don't hear much anymore from the traditional (fiscal-responbility, states' rights, and so on) conservatives anymore, do you? That's because they don't stick to the Republican party-line.
If anyone should be accused of discriminating against sources it's Fox News, which screams "liberal!" (like you) any time someone disagrees with them, like it's a crime to have a different opinion.
For some reason that I do not know (please comment) there is a fairly large number of internet blogs that spin certain things the way the GOP leaderhip would like them. (By Spin I mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations#Spin )
This is not some conspiracy. Those people are all individuals acting by themselves (and setting up networks, but decentralized networks that nobody stears).
And those people are not even the super wealthy that actually benefit. They are mostly ordinary citizen. Why would they do this? Many of them also claim that the "main stream media" (they use the term MSM) conspire against conservative America. I know that there are also liberal webpages that spin a lot of things. And when you watch Fahrenheit 9/11 you get dizzy from all the spin (and then I read "counterspin" the next day in some of those conservative blogs, what the hell?). But Michael Moore gets a lot of money. Those conservative bloggers don't. And they put a huge amount of work into it. What motivates those people? After all the only people that benefit from the war in Iraq are the large stockholders that own Boeing, Haliburton and the likes. The rest pays for it in taxes.
If you want to look up the pages I am talking about just click yourself through the links WorldNetDaily provides on their page.
Here a video of Labour MPs attacking the leader of the opposition. A significant own-goal, I suspect, as what they were parodying would likely have remained in obscurity otherwise.
m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6048202.st
It seems rather naive to think that a site like YouTube can't be manipulated for all sorts of political gains. I'd definitely file "misdirection" as one of the skilled politician's most oft' used tactics. (Republican or Democrat alike.)
The video seems to be there and I had no problems finding it.
In fact there are, at this time, three (3) copies on the site none of them flagged
That really dosn't fit my definition of censored but perhaps you could lend me your copy of the "Rightwing Ditto Head Dictonary" and clear things up...
Ass
short answer: Yup.
Just look at the responses to your comment. Just look at the comments and moderation on this whole thread. Look at the number of Bush bashing links in the sigs of the people saying this is BS.
YouTube didn't exactly censor the video, they did however make it harder to see. They have however completely censored people like Malkin and other conservative pundits. Meanwhile assassination video's of the President are just fine and dandy.
This article points out facts, but they're not facts the liberals like, so of course they must be buried and attacked. Remember, presenting both sides of the story is considered to be a conservative trait and must be lambasted by liberals everywhere. (Note that FoxNews is called a 'conservative network' even though they're not, they just make an effort to show both sides - a crime to many liberals these days).
YouTube censors. They have the right to do it, but the fact remains that they do it. So does Google. They both censor conservative opinions rather heavily. Pretending otherwise just shows that you've either no touch with reality, or that you've become so partisan yourself that you can't admit the truth anymore. And why are so many web surfers liberal? Because who else has time to spend all day online? College students, who are constantly hearing only one side of any story in school these days. And who have learned from their professors that stifling debate is better than participating in it.
Others have a RIGHT to point out when they believe that a site like YouTube is stiffling speach from conservative sources just like the left likes to point out that FOX news tends to omit things presented by the left. That's how the free market works. Maybe it will be in YouTube's best interest for anyone who's not a liberal to realize they're not a valued member of YouTube's community and to leave so that YouTube can officially pigeonhole itself as another intolerant liberal website that competes with MoveOn.org for traffic.
Conservatives are more often the target of ad hominem or source-based dismissals but that did not come out of thin air. In 6 years of straight conservative Republican rule we've seen an unprecedented attack on objective, fact-based discussion and governance. From teaching biology to studying the Earth to our own intelligence services, there has been a clear trend. I mean, it's strong enough to have generated a hit show dedicated solely to mocking it out, and a whole new word.
Liberal sources do it too but the fact of the matter is that when they do it, it is powerless and meek. But there's something about having it rammed down our throat by our government that over-sensitizes even moderates.
It's like conservatives want things both ways--they want to be in total power, but they also want the victim's position of being unfairly targetted and discriminated against. Sorry, life is not fair. When you're running the show you're going to garner more attention. If you want the victims' empowerment you have to first be an actual victim.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
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...
It's not the direction that the compass is pointing in. It's the sheer distance of the object that it is pointing to.
There's nothing wrong with being conservative. There is, however, plenty wrong with being extreme (regardless of which extreme end of the political spectrum you reside in). In this particular instance, WorldNetDaily has long been known as an extreme right-wing rag with very questionable credentials. These are the people who, post 9-11, suggested that U.S. soldiers should dip all of their bullets in pork lard and that we should taint the water supplies of major Muslim population centers with pig's blood. They're constantly putting out stories clearly aimed at Americans with -- well, let's just say "slightly lower than average IQs", such as ridiculous claims involving an Iranian superweapon that could take the entire U.S. "back to the Stone Age".
If this is the reality that you live in, then you have no right to complain when people question your ability to accurately represent something that is anywhere near reality. I pity those poor souls who get all of their news from sites like WorldNetDaily, much as I pity those poor souls who rely on places like MichaelMoore.com for all of their information on world events.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
It has been modded to -1 as overrated, but it clearly deserves an informative, at least for the first part...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Why would they care if it was flagged for 18 and over?!?
;)
Can kids vote now ?
So if say NK spent years developing technology and manufacting equipment using resources given to them by Clinton then it's fair to blame the Bush who shows up after the fact simply because the material's "born on" date is post 2001?
If you ever listened to your gut you'd know that censorship is any weighted presentation of information that falls short of 100% equal time for all whack-job opinions. So long as they are pro-American gut-checked whack-job opinions.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
How about, instead of completely removing offending videos (of course, I exclude videos that violate laws like child porn in this proposal), YouTube simply moves them behind a page that warns the viewer? "THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN FLAGGED AS OFFENSIVE/INAPPROPRIATE/VOMIT-INDUCING BY 12345 YOUTUBE MEMBERS. PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK". If you go ahead and view it anyway, you were warned.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sorry, couldn't help myself. :-)
M-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
I would say more like public service. Is it still "censorship" when the "information" is a blatant lie?
If we're blaming Clinton for NK, are we going to blame Reagan for Iran? I mean he even sold them weapons. Illegally. It's not like we're only 1 year into the Bush administration. The fact is, Bush is just as much if not more to blame than Clinton. And guess what? I don't blame either of them for the NK problems. I do blame the right for trying to blame everything on Clinton. Sometimes bad shit happens.
would it be legal to distribute this video in that way? I do not know if it was the copyright holders who put that video online in YouTube, but in a lot of cases, this is clearly not the case. Music videos, copies of TV spots, movies, and other stuff is put there in a clear violation of copyright.
Even a private video where some youngster dances to a track of copyrighted music is clearly illegal according to copyright law. So I think YouTube has much bigger problems than the occasional "censorship" of something that is probably illegal to make publically available in the first place.
The US does have a third otion for dealing with North Korea, and, oddly enough, it involves no interaction with North Korea at all.
It involves working with China. Demanding they clean up their own mess, and threatening sanction on them until they do do so. But no President even vaguely considers standing up to China, considing they're funding 1/8th of our fucking government. China doesn't care, because NK doesn't threaten them at all.
So we've reached this point where NK has probably ceased serving China's purposes, and the shit is about to hit the fucking fan. Sanctions will start, and NK will probably do something batshit insane like wipe out Seoul.
And we got played by China for the last two decades. And we're going to lose ten thousand troups in the DMZ, exactly at the point we can't afford it militarily.
Seriously, we've never had any good options for North Korea. We should have slowly been withdrawing from any influence in that area, while making sure that both China and North Korea understand that if they invade South Korea, we'd bomb the hell out of whoever did it. This would have made China step up to the plate, which of course they would have.
The question is, of a chained North Korea, and a wildly out of control North Korea that everyone agrees China has to shoot, which one plays more into China's hands? I actually kinda thing it's the later, and that this had to happen someday anyway, so I'm not that worried.
However, comparing the handling of NK by Bush and Clinton, I've got to go with Clinton's handling. We bribed them, sure, but it wasn't that worthwhile a bribe. Meanwhile, Bush didn't seem to actually have any handling at all. I mean, at the least, strict words for removing the nuclear material. Hell, we're talking about bombing places Iran may be nuclear research, but we don't bomb trucks that are carrying nuclear materials? Even if Bush's non-handling coincidentally results in the best solution for us with China being forced to take out NK, I can't really condone that behavior.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
It seems I replied to the parent by mistake.
In related news, Air America just declared bankruptcy.
Liberalism - A plan to socialize America, redistribute wealth, weaken us militarily and tax us to death without providing any new solutions.
Brilliant!
Time for a >2 party system.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
(circa 750,000 bce)
Liberal Caveman: Ugh. Look. Fire. Roast bunny. Bunny taste good roasted. Keeps longer, too. Feed more people.
Conservative Caveman: Ugh. We have always eaten raw meat. Cooked meat bad for you. Only fags eat cooked meat. Real men eat raw meat.
(circa 9000 bce)
Liberal Pastoralist: Caves are cramped - let's live indoors!
Conservative Pastoralist: We have always lived in caves. Caves are strong. Caves are good.
(circa 1650)
Conservative King Asshole: Divine right of Kings - my gluttony has been blessed BY GOD!
Liberal Secular Philosopher: a government is only legitimate if it receives the consent of the governed through a social contract and protects the natural rights of life, liberty, and estate. If such consent is not given, citizens have a right to rebellion.
(circa 1776)
Conservative Loyalist: Remain subjects of the Crown!
Liberal Patriots: Rebel Against the Crown - NOW!
(circa 1860)
Conservative Southerner: ENSLAVE THE NEGROES!
Liberal Northerner: Free the Blacks. Now.
(circa 1960)
Conservative Southerner: BEAT THE NEGROES! Keep them disenfranchised and ignorant!
Liberal Northerner: Let Blacks Vote and Be Educated.
(circa 1980, S. Africa)
Conservative: "Your misery shall endure forever." Liberal: "Apartheid must end NOW."
The list goes on and on. The fact is, the liberal position of increased liberty and justice for ALL eventually wins out. Always. The micro measurements might be back and forth, but the march of the human project is in one direction, and it is not one that favours the conservative position. Ever.
The Parent is a TROLL.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
No news here; WorldNetDaily has been accusing Google of left wing bias for quite a while now. Another Slashdotter posted a similar article on an unrelated thread back in May; you can read their comment here and my response here.
WorldNetDaily has no well-founded complaint against Google. Google has been removing material both from the left and from the right because of its policy against hate speech. WorldNetDaily == right wing crackpots who theorize that Google gives special treatment to Democrats. Why do they claim this? Because they realized a number of Google employees are democrats.
Expect to see this same article regurgitated again and again at WorldNetDaily. Editors: in future, please make sure to prescribe a salt pillar for impressionable readers when linking to WorldNetDaily.
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
Left-wingers can't take the heat of the format in talk radio. In talk radio, you put callers on the air. I think most people are actually conservative in their views (admittedly I'm conservative/libertarian in my views too) and so, when given a format where they can't just buy their way and pontificate without interruption, they suffer. On TV, which is a one-way push format, liberals are better able to get a lock. Where they have to confront the real world, liberal ideas fail: witness the war on poverty, the war on drugs, public education - despite ever-increasing amounts of money channelled into these endeavors, nothing really seems to improve much.
Constitutionally Correct
Strange. I thought censorship was actually preventing people from seeing things, not simply labeling them and letting others decide if they should be viewed or not. I guess I never knew that when someone told me that Gigli was a really bad movie they were actually CENSORING Gigli.
I guess that makes Siskel And Ebert some of the most successfull censors of our time.
AccountKiller
"No matter what the US gives to North Korea, they can always renege on it and start making nukes."
Yeah, then you stop giving them things. That's how it works. You could exchange "Getting Gifts" for "Remaining Unkilled"-- it's the same exact thing. You give somebody incentive to do/not-do something. North Korea could renege on obedience to a threat of physical force in the same way they could renege on exchange agreements. The only thing you CAN'T renege on is your complete conquest, when it's finished.
By your reasoning, no peace treaties should ever be signed, because it's only a hope/promise of future behavior-- the victor should just annihilate the defeated enemy.
Anyway, abstractions aside, the situation is escalating now, which wasn't so in the 90's. NK had less plutonium, no nukes, and active oversight.
Oh, puh-leeeeeaassse. YouTube restricted the content probably because enough people rec'd it adult content. Since you can still get to it, at least the last time I checked, through an account login which is free, it isn't censorship. Doubly so because anyone who can legitimately claim adult age is also legitimately permitted to vote, ergo the target audience of this video.
Besides, I saw that chunk of crap. It IS offensive... to my intelligence. The first time I saw it, I thought it was a parody until I realized that they were serious about the content (albeit in a sarcastic manner). I kept expecting the punch line to come but it never did.
I know that conservatives need snark, bullshit, and unlimited access to media to convince suckers to vote for them, but my guess is that it was the viewers who caused that to be put in the back by the pornography. That's democracy for you, conservatives, I know you don't recognize it, so consider that a PSA.
Besides, "pornography" is specifically what it is, since the definition is "something that appeals to one's prurient interests". I can think of nothing more appealing to prurience than something that panders to a right-wing desire to get your rocks off while debasing your "enemy", those danged liberals.
It's not censorship if its me that doesn't want you to see it.
Anyone who publishes both Dailykos and a "paleocon antisemitic site" doesn't have a "clear bias". There could be a bias but it's not a clear one.
So before I can point out your dirty laundry I must first display all of mine? I don't think so.
Even you don't do that in your post, ignoring Clinton having attorneys demand that "The Path to 9/11" not be aired.
Both sides are too dirty to begin the "who is more corrupt" game though. We all just lose...
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
For me to consider something "censored" it would have to remain fully accessible to the public but with content changed or cut out of it. That would be far more insidious than merely restricting access to people who claim to be 18 years old. By the article's definition of censorship, all pornography sold in the US is censored by the government.
I also fully support misusing slashdot's moderation system to marginalize conservative opinions. Once again, no apologies.
:)
That's why I can't read people like that anymore. I just automatically assume they're lying.
Sure, it started out simple. I'd check things they reported like 'Things getting better in Iraq', and go check the current situtation.
Then I started checking things like the actual names and position of people. 'Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of England, said...' and I'd have to go and check that he was still the prime minister, despite me having no doubt before reading the article.
And this point, if I were to read their site, I'd actually check whether or not it is possible to create 'videos', a series of moving images that appear to the human eye as movement.
Gve me another month, and I'll start questioning their assumption that time and space exist.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
As others have pointed out this was a byproduct of YouTube's ranking system. Like WorldNetDaily hasn't positioned itself as a media source that pushes a particular agenda. If they're concerned with others being bipartisan maybe they should lead the way.
No sig for you!!
"It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative"
Sorry, forgot:
if(conservative == true){
censorship = "good";
}
else{
censorship = "bad";
}
"Carville" is to "liberal" as "fish" is to "bicycle".
Technically correct, as Carville doesn't ride a liberal. He rides a conservative (Mary Matalin).
Rim shot!
Aside from that, if you don't think Carville qualifies as a "liberal," then you are way off the deep end on the left side of the pool, probably the exact opposite of Pat Buchannan.
Republicans want to censor whats against them..
Democrats want to censor whats against them..
It goes both ways.. Anyone that says other words is full of crap.
Both political parties are full of crap up to their eyeballs and only care about throwing their own feces at the other party rather then doing anything worthwhile to HELP this country.
I'm an independante conservative... I think for myself and don't let a party tell me whats good for me and whats bad.
A factual analysis of the liberal attempts at talk radio show that they just don't make money. It seems there is less of a market for liberals bashing of conservatives than most liberals would care to admit.
This seems especially timely: I heard this morning that Air Americal just filed for Chapter 11.
And I heard it on KCBS radio - the CBS news stations in San Francisco - not on a conservative talk show. (KCBS is about as left-wing as a news station can get and still pretend to be objectvie.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
We should have slowly been withdrawing from any influence in that area
You keep using that word...
while making sure that both China and North Korea understand that if they invade South Korea, we'd bomb the hell out of whoever did it.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Pretending that WND is an unbiased source is roughly on the same intellectual level as trying to say that Ted Turner had absolutely no political agenda in how he ran his media holdings.
-- Old Man Kensey
Maybe you've never heard the saying, that those in glass houses should not throw stones? Yes, exactly.
As far as I can tell this 'news story' is about whining that a technological system blocked their attack ad in exactly the same way it blocks attack ads from other parties. Was there any evidence given for example that other videos were marked inapproprate after this one but were cleared before it? Nope. Was there any evidence for even a single claim in the article, for example the claims about Google? Nope. Just some quotes by random people.
A mod gave my post Offtopic for giving an example of actual media censorship on a story about alleged media censorship. It makes me wonder what exactly the topic is if it isn't media censorship... some crackpot whining republicans? youtube's method of blocking inappropriate ads? what?
Um, so? Slashdot is a wee bit liberal. The issue is if YouTube is censoring videos whose politics they disagree with or not. Bashing the source for its politics irregardless of factual accuracy is shameful.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Its a company, they can choose not to air anything they want..
Its only when the government gets involved that there are any issues with it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I don't know about pigeonholing, but whatever it was that happened to him, yeah, I would have preferred that it hadn't.
Apparently it's human instinct to slap a label on everyone and anything.... If someone can't fit something into a category, they seem lost or unable to comprehend it...
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
I shouldn't have mentioned Iraq I suppose. But seeing your mentioning of MSM I suppose it wouldn't have made a difference. Do you know what the defenition of mainstream is?
Oh and the only thing that actually had changed in the day to day life of 25 million human beings in Iraq is that violence is up and the power is often down. Or do you think the regional warlords permit stuff like freedom of press? And for women it will go downhill from here. In these uncertain times religion is on the rise (I suppose you are very religios too, but not a woman, so you are in favour of this) and that means more cloths and less freedom.
Wake up! Don't live in a dream world. There are hugh gaps in my education btw, but at least I understand some basic principles. I looked at all the arguments why the war in Iraq was fought and found them all to be bogus. Including the "blook for oil" crap. Money is the only one left. There is your independent research.
"Some call you the elite, I call you my base."
GW Bush
...oh, I'm not saying it's a problem per-se (the quantity of political articles), just commenting on the situation...kind of like talking about the weather, I guess.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law