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/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.
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.
Wal-mart is censoring movies and music. CBS, NBC and ABC are censoring TV. ClearChannel is censoring the radio. Barnes and Noble is censoring authors. AT&T is censoring the phone system. Albertsons is censoring food distributors.
Nyah nyah! Boil blood, boil!
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Slashdot's moderation system is a form of censorship. Opinions that don't follow the anti-Microsoft, anti-American party line are regularly censored. People on Slashdot will complain about free speech zones and then mod down posts that they simply don't agree with. Happens all the time.
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.
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"
"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.
"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.
Hilarious that you got modded up for this. I fully expect it to get to +5. Did you see, for example, the recent global warming post? Something like 80% of the +5 comments were of the fringe global warming "skeptic" view. The notion that the prevailing view of Slashdot moderators is "anti-American" (ie liberal, translating from dittohead speak) is absurd. Perhaps the editors are mostly liberal, but the community has quite a large number of right-libertarians.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
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.
Also, if you don't see any Microsoft apologists on this website, even browsing at +4, you are not paying attention at all. In general there is an anti-MS bias around here, but if you open your eyes you'll find the dissenting opinions.
On behalf of slashdotters with a clue, thank you for contributing to the dilution of a perfectly good word. Henceforth, let's associate "censorship" to mean "viewing threshold" on a stupid interbutts forum. That way, when REAL censorship happens, nobody will care.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
Slashdot's moderation system is a form of censorship
Censorship is the removal of material. Moderated comments are never removed but "removed from view" depending on your personal settings. However the comments are still there.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
that Slashdot is just a wee bit liberal.
Heh, sure. But there are degrees; Bush 41 is clearly less insane. I'm just happy for the one redeeming feature of the US electoral system: I live in New York, so I don't feel the obligation to vote for idiots like Kerry or (gag, please god no, don't run in 2008) Hillary Clinton. On the other hand, it is somewhat depressing that the outcome is inevitable before the candidate is even picked.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
If you're surprised, you're not paying attention.
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.
C'mon... I metamoderate as much as possible, it's the only check of censorship in this place. It's the one thing I applaud this site for. But you're dreaming if you don't think that unpopular opinions aren't moderated ALL THE TIME with the express purpose of censoring unpopular opinions. Also remember that liberal idiots like Kdawson are editors and have unlimited moderation points... and if you don't think the Slashdot editors aren't politically biased then you are blind or just willfully ignorant.
Gimme a break, Slashdot is overwhelmingly "left wing"... every once in a while a libertarian/conservative post gets modded up but it's fairly rare. Generally if an article is posted, the same 120 bland nonthinking comments are posted because everyone is afraid of getting moderated downward. This place is just a shrill greek chorus to the political bias of the editors.
It's called hypocrisy. You whine and cry about "censorship" and then turn around and censor an opinion you don't like with moderation.
I avoid political things on /. because of the huge right-wing bias.
HAHAHAHAHA.
I seriously hope you're kidding, or else you meant to type "free republic" instead of "/." or something. Slashdot's to the right of Stalin, perhaps, but that's about it.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
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.
You need to work on your reading comprehension, sir. My issue with the grandparent is the mis-use of the word "censorship". I'm not denying that unpopular opinions get moderated down, I'm saying that moderation is not censorship. Additionally, the tools exist for users to read whatever unpopular posts that they like. You don't have to browse at the default threshold.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
"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
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.
Yeah, I generally prefer to filter out content that doesn't contain profanity and nudity.
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.
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.
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...
I would say more like public service. Is it still "censorship" when the "information" is a blatant lie?
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