Slashdot Mirror
Egyptian Blogger Silenced by YouTube, Yahoo!
An anonymous reader writes "An Egyptian human rights activist has been muzzled after YouTube and Yahoo! shut down his accounts. Award-winning blogger Wael Abbas regularly writes and posts video about police brutality, torture and sexual harassment in Egypt. One of the videos — of an Egyptian bus driver being brutalized by an officer — was used as evidence to convict two members of the police force. That's a rare occurrence in a country where human-rights groups say torture is rampant. YouTube said the decision to remove Abbas' videos had nothing to do with the Egyptian government, but was rather an internal decision."
Nobody has the right to express their views through somebody else's medium, particularly graphic violence through a medium like YouTube that is marketed as family-friendly. This guy hasn't been silenced, he's been kicked off particular services. He is free to use other services, isn't he?
Let's not dilute and weaken the term "censorship" please. It is a despicable act and Google and Yahoo choosing not to provide service to him is not even close.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Oh wait, they're not! The internet is big. If a PRIVATE COMPANY doesn't want to host your content, they do not have to, and you can take your content elsewhere.
Uhm... internal decision? So they mean that they didn't bother to even wait for the government to order them to remove it? And this is supposed to make them look better or what?
c++;
There is an adult content flag for certain videos on Youtube for a reason. That is more than ample to protect users from unwanted contect. Besides, if someone finds one of his videos I doubt they did so by searching for cute pink daisies. They are owned by Google, after all.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Censored bloke: "By far the biggest blow to the anti-torture movement in Egypt"
..."
YouTube: "Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it."
Commentary: "OK, why then can I find dozens of videos of people getting tasered by the police? If you ask me, a video of someone getting shocked with a high voltage weapon can definitely be described as graphic violence. And many will argue that the violence in such videos cannot be qualified as gratuitous.
Yeah, we know. And if McDonald's don't want to serve a black person they don't have to, and you can take your business elsewhere. Isn't the free market wonderful!
c++;
They are not mandated by law not to engage in censorship, but that doesn't mean that this is something other than censorship and I don't have to like it. This is a big difference.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
I assume the ! means Not.
So "Not do not evil" ???
Maybe it's misspelled, Homer. Maybe it's supposed to be donut evil.
If you RTFA, there's expressed what I think is a very valid point. If youtube forbids vids containing graphical violence, then why aren't all those people uploading videos of people getting tasered by police officers (for example) getting their accounts banned. IMHO It's not a matter of "Terms of Service". It's a matter of a company choosing to apply those Terms with a double standard. A double standard that get's a the account of a guy who uses youtube to denounce torture banned. And that is wrong both ethically and legally.
My blog
Let's not dilute and weaken the term "censorship" please.
Dilute it? It means what it means, I suggest that people who keep slicing more and more off of the definition until there is nothing left so that they can say "see, now nothing can ever be censored again, the world is a better place to [redacted]!" are doing far more damage than people calling those who would decide what is and is not fit for others to see the censors that they are.
The German Police will be pleased.
That's not "Insightful" in any way.
Youtube's terms of service prohibit graphic violence. The terms of service were violated, and the violator was punished. If this was any other person, posting random violence, there'd be no scandal over his removal.
So why, may I ask, is the Slashdot community so biased over youtube... when clearly the blogger chose to post content he knew to be unacceptable according to the terms of this FREE service.
If this content was removed from his blog... or if his blog was removed... that might be sensorship. But in this case, all Youtube did, was enforce its terms of service.
The journalist at the Guardian looks like somebody I'd expect to find here.
A gut decision maybe? Or just like a gut, full of sh*t.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Discrimination on the basis of race (and some other traits) is illegal in the US. All other, unprotected, kinds of discriminations are legal, although the list of the protected ones is growing.
Indeed, it is.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"Don't be evil" statement does not mean Google wants to be good. They are simply neutral; their business is gathering profiles and providing contents. If a government needs a service (obtaining personal information or closing an account) they'll provide it otherwise they may be censored and loose a market
I've just made an internal decision of my own, never to use another Yahoo site, or related property again. That includes Flickr and any other Yahoo owned property.
From now on Yahoo is blocked on my network as well. Sorry, it was an 'internal decision' to block it.
Normal service will resume when (if?) Yahoo pull their socks up.
For all those comments saying this has to do with how bad the situation is in Egypt, it does not.
This is indicative of the situation in the US where these corporations exist.
Historical record shows that corporate entities have big financial incentives to aid and abet the suppression of human rights in democratic societies that are closing down and turning into dictatorship states.
Naomi Wolf, an award winning feminist writer who used to be part of the Clinton clique has recently written a book about this. For those who would like to check it out there is an youtube speech she gave recently detailing the main concept of her recent research.
The U.S. is in a downward spiral and predictions can be made for what comes next. The attacks are first directed at the margins of society, then the lines get blurred and everyone becomes fair game. Within a year you will hear this happen to an American blogger and many people will defend the action. Journalists are already being harassed, bloggers will come soon after.
It reminds me of a poem I once heard:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.
Liberty.
Oh, I forgot...
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Where did you get that Yahoo suspended his accounts from? TFA (must be a first!) doesn't mention it at all...
And what has this story to do with Yahoo!?
And if they put the video back now they can drool over all the advertising revenue from a slashdotting.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
"If a PRIVATE COMPANY doesn't want to host your content, they do not have to" But that selfsame PRIVATE COMPANY must bear the consequences of their choice in the PUBLIC OPINION.
There are a growing number of "whistleblower" that follow political corruption, though many are just wikis. Do any of those allow for video uploads?
Oh right, Yahoo! bought YouTube from Google recently, no?
First amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
Note the first word. It says Congress, not Youtube. You have no rights when playing on someone else's property. If you don't like playing by someone else's rules, run your blog from your own server, or somewhere else.
P.S. Reductio ad Hitlerum doesn't help your argument.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
is highly unprofessional
there is no need to be joyful of this bloggers misfortune.
I visited You Tube today to complain about the cancellation of Egyptian blogger Wael Abbas's account.
How can documenting human rights abuses be gratuitous? Your policy is against specifically gratuitous violence, after all. I would ask you and your owner (Google) to reverse this evil, and reinstate him forthwith.
Wikileaks, no DNS
or maybe it could be that getting tasered isn't considered excessive "Graphical Violence".
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Why are you letting Youtube and parent company off the hook? Oh, Google are the good guys, they say so themselves.
Private entities have the right to censor, but it remains censorship. States also have the right to censor; it doesn't stop the act from being censorship when it occurs. Nor does it prevent the act from being wrong.
Wikileaks, no DNS
I would argue that being tasered is a huge degree of difference from being bludgeoned by several police with clubs.
I did RTFA, and I didn't see any mention of Yahoo.
Not that I think they really deserve defending, but in this case, if they didn't do anything, it's not really fair to blame them in the headline...
Ive been watching youtube videos on and off for over a year now and lately I have noticed everything is becoming sanitised and Disney like. I often see commentary videos pulled that I have already seen for the most vague reasons. I suspect now that Youtube is being paid to insert viral advertising videos into the cloud Youtube wants to make sure their new paying masters dont have much criticism happening.
Discrimination on the basis of race (and some other traits) is illegal in the US. All other, unprotected, kinds of discriminations are legal, although the list of the protected ones is growing.
Who claimed that anything was illegal? Are we only allowed to complain about illegal things, and not allowed to discuss the ethics of legal actions?
The word "Censorship" still applies whether or not it's done by the Government, and whether or not they have a right to do it.
And sure, they have a "right" to do it. Other people have a right to criticise those actions.
I mean, Microsoft have a right to release Vista, that doesn't stop people here complaining about it all the time!
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
That has to be the most cynical title ever given to a Slashdot article. What's next ?
Chinese Journalist Muffled by Government, Hurray!
American Civilian Tasered by Police, Yipee!
Naomi Wolf was recently on Democracy Now! talking about "The End of America" (transcript, low-bandwidth audio, high-bandwidth audio, low-bandwidth video, high-bandwidth video).
Digital Citizen
Thanks for reminding me of that. Remind Google, too. Send them a letter and let them know what you think of censorship. You all can use mine, if you wish:
Your Address
Date of writing
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
To whom it may concern:
I have been a faithful user of Google for several years now. I'm proud to support a company that offers great products (search, email, calendars, photo management, videos, etc.) while remaining consumer friendly. I especially appreciate Google's efforts to "not be evil" when asked by the U.S. Government to hand over searches performed by Google's users.
It is for these reasons that I daily attempt to switch people from less consumer friendly web services like Yahoo or AOL. I warn friends and family that Yahoo has given information to the Chinese government that was used to imprison at least three Chinese journalists (Shi Tao, Li Zhi, and Jiang Lijun), while AOL released to the public every search term made on their site as well as a personally identifiable user number. Thank you, Google, for standing up for free speech and user rights.
I am, however, quite disappointed in Google today. This morning, when I logged in to my Google Homepage, I was greeted by a story on Slashdot discussing the recent YouTube banning of Egyptian blogger and free speech/anti-torture activist Wael Abbas. I realize that Abbas's videos demonstrating police brutality and torture may have been somewhat graphic and against YouTube's Terms of Service, but American users regularly post videos of people being TASERed or getting in fights. If something is indeed graphic, it is normally tagged as "mature" and still allowed to remain on YouTube.
So I ask you, Google, why are you suddenly censoring videos that were used to fight police brutality? What happened to your motto "Don't Be Evil"? Why do you stand up for the rights of Americans, yet censor free speech in other countries?
Thank you for your time. I eagerly await your response (email is fine).
(Your Name)
(Your Email)
Links to information discussed in this letter:
http://www.booyahoo.com/
http://tinyurl.com/28amqh
http://tinyurl.com/2cpxvv
http://tinyurl.com/ytk2lc
(the above tinyurl's redirect to Google search pages)
Erskin
geek.
This must be a content rights thing,
YouTube is a medium for Jackass imitators and happy slappers
but this guy was obviously not causing the violence he spread.
However, who is to say they refused that person because of race? They could have refused service to him because he didn't have a shirt on. The point is McDonald's wouldn't allow someone to violate their policy (their TOS so to speak) to someone just because he is of an ethnic minority.
The person violated Yahoo! and YouTube's TOS. He should not get preferential treatment just because he is a journalist. He can always post his videos and blogs elsewhere, where he is not in violation of the TOS.
Funny you should choose this example---I live in a predominately "white" area of my city, and all the people who work behind the counter at my local McDonald's are black. Free market indeed!
Occam's Razor:
Those accounts haven't been suspended yet, because they haven't been "reported" enough as violating the terms of service. Please remember, YouTube isn't a person. YouTube doesn't even employ video screeners who watch all videos as they are uploaded. The screeners only look at videos that have been reported for violating the terms of service and there are also multiple different screeners who may have slightly different standards and must make judgement calls on what gets pulled and what doesn't. I doubt an account gets banned until it has been reported for multiple ToS violations across multiple videos.
Having said that I can't agree with YouTube's decision. It seems to me that there should be enough flexibility in the rules to keep users and videos that violate the terms of service but do so for good reasons. Exposing oppression and exploitation is good for humanity, and what's good for humanity should be good for YouTube.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
If youtube forbids vids containing graphical violence, then why aren't all those people uploading videos of people getting tasered by police officers (for example) getting their accounts banned. You're dealing with cultural definitions and tolerances for graphic violence. My guess would be that Google is drawing the line at what is illegal for display in the UK (a much narrower range than the U.S. where graphic violence appears every night on network TV). Blame Google if you want, but I'm not sure that you are standing on solid ground. Then again, I don't know the specifics, and I'm guessing as to their rationale.
It appears that what he was saying was, quit acting like it was against the law. Don't compare it to something illegal and most likely more severe then the act of removing violent videos from a private site.
I happen to agree. Too often Racism is tossed out and the meaning has become so watered down that the normal reaction to most when hearing about a case is that someone is attempting to get something they don't deserve. Racism and discrimination are very serious offenses and situations. They aren't a trump card to get your way or demonize an opponent. Censor ship is also serious but some site taking something off the web doesn't mean that censorship is happening. That stuff can go back up on any other site and be just as accessible to anyone who could view it before. That isn't the same as Censorship, it is someone using the term censorship to play a trump card or degrade an opponent.
And why is there a problem complaining about the complainers? Do one persons right to complain trump another's right? Aren't the people complaining about the people complaining about the people complaining over Youtube doing just the same? Is there a double standard or is complaining just a normal past time for people?
Also, I have to wonder, are the colleges on break or something? I have seen a lot of Neopolitical comments in the last week to two that seem to have a very stern but also very wrong stance on a lot of semi political topics that get turned into US bashing or Bush Bashing or some sort of bashing. The comments all remind me of first year PS students who all the sudden think they understand everything because of some slanted lessons their professors gave them. It is about as bad as the first year Psych students attempting to diagnose people 3 months into their courses. You can tell which ones they are, they attempt to push opinions as facts instead of facts to reach an opinion.
I'm curious, what are your views on network neutrality?
The reason is to satisfy all the dried-up prunes who yell "think of teh childrens".
It's not like the guy was violating copyright. Google this situation smells. It's the real world, WAKE UP!!
Censorship is everywhere. Governments usually decide what is ok and what is not and media usually tries to stay within legal confines. Yahoo can take down any video they want. Injustices can be pointed out by media as long as they are within the confines of what the government/big business dictates. Let's also keep in mind that morality is very subjective. In Sudan a british teacher who allowed a student to name her doll Mohammed is being jailed for 15 days while Sudanese Islamists ask for her death. A french singer who murdered his girlfriend has recently been released from prison after just 3 years because "the people" felt he'd done his time and wanted him back in the music scene. Yes both of these cases are extreme but it's an example of how relative morals can be. My Blog
A friend of mine made alot of youtube videos and gathered a small following.
Til he released a video based upon Heavenly Bank Account by Frank Zappa.
He did the typical and spliced video into his own video.
And he lost his account.
Bertrand Cantat? While technically murder, it was "murder committed with indirect intent (dolus eventualis)". He also served closer to four years, not three (albeit only just). I think it worth noting in this context that "life imprisonment" in a country like Denmark means twenty years - this is the absolute maximum you can serve in prison (or was, until the current government started buying into this whole so-called "war on terror" thing...) and I consider this to be good - can you honestly say you were the same person (in all but a literal sense) twenty years ago?
- Frans.
Better yet, why doesn't Wikileaks or whatever start up leaktube if Youtube technically doesn't allow this stuff? I think Wikileaks is a great idea and Leaktube would be perfect for things like this.
Unless you're familiar with history. :)
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not." What I'm saying is that your argument sounds reasonable, but does not stand up to what has actually happened in such situations.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Yes, Anarcho-Capitalist freaks, this is the utopia you all wanted! YouTube and Google have become a purely corporate run 'news' network without any government oversight or professional standards of conduct. Everything is at the whim of the company hosting the data. According to Randist theories, all of you unhappy with selective censorship should just frequent another company... except who knows how long these abuses will remain before a new (and likely equally bad) open-news source company becomes available?
http://www.coderoshi.com/
First I want to say that I am strongly opposed to any sort or censorship and if I thought these companies were trying to censor him I would be upset but I don't really think this is the case.
I agree with many other posters that have pointed out all the tazer videos on Youtube have not been taken down but I think that most people would agree that being brutally beaten is more graphic (atleast in terms of blood) then someone who is being tazered. I would also agree that a mature content flag should be sufficient to warn people about this content but I think here is where YouTube and Yahoo! get into trouble. By letting this video stay posted, YouTube and Yahoo! are saying that this content does not violate their TOS and can be posted on the site. This leaves them a sitting duck for action/legislation initiated by people who were offended by the video wanting these companies to verify that people watching these videos are of a suitable age. Obviously it is not in YouTubes or Yahoo!s interest to make their content any harder to access or have to spend money verifying peoples age. I think this was just a very political move by these companies to try and avoid any governments getting involved period.
Being tazed isn't graphic violence -- it's just battery.
Graphic violence is beheadings, disembowelments, people getting hit so hard that their nose crushes and their eyeballs pop out. You know, GRAPHIC violence. When blood starts being shown, it starts getting into graphic territory.
Since Yahoo! is not mentioned in the article, does that mean Yahoo! owns Youtube?
There is a much bigger picture going here. Between this issue being discussed, and the teacher that was muzzled, thrown in jail and threatened with being lashed and all has given pause to ask the question; "Why are we still doing business with these nations then?". I am beginning to see how two-faced many of us are when we are more interested in their oil and ability to fly over their country when we're defending ours, etc.
If you really want to put an end to this mess, stop buying large SUV's, trucks, and things that use a lot of gas, and get something efficient or non-petroleum based. The sudden down-turn in the income of the Saudis, Egypt, Sudan, and lots of those places will put their economy into a downward spiral. Knowing what I know about these countries, I would never go there as a tourist because being a Christian is against the law in many of those places. I don't see why my money has to keep going there to support that 2nd century mindset that rules the day there.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
I'd consider one of the most important points in teenager education to be social responsiblity and the explanation of democracy to kids (not the "We're a great democracy? Why? Because!" reasoning, but a broad education about what it means to be living in a democracy, what are the specific requirements of a democracy, comparisons and examples for the lack and successful fulfillments of those requirements, what responsibilities does a citizen have who is living in a democracy, etc.).
Videos like this are very educational. For example police brutality in Hungary, that was orchestrated by the current government on peaceful protesters, where even an opposition member of the parliament got beaten up by police wearing no identification numbers, should not be allowed to occur without major effects to that government. It did. It was only possible, because there is still a large portion of contemporary hungarian society that was born and educated in the pre 1990 era, when a citizen only had to shut up in order to be a good citizen, only had to shut up and look for their own interest. Forming groups and exercising solidarity was prosecuted. In a democracy minding your own business is not enough. A democracy presupposes an educated electorate that actually gives a shit about the leadership of a country, it presupposes social solidarity. Otherwise, what would be the point of living in a society at all?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
What is missing in the summary is that Google owns YouTube. But the Google fanboys here would not want admit that the Almighty Google is fallible.
Please provide proof of Yahoo's complicity, or fix the summary and the headline.
Dude, that bull's got more brains then you do.
And let me tell you: cows are downright fucking stupid.
While I generally agree with your sentiment, the relationship between government and business is not as simple as you want it to be. The best way for a government to direct corporate action (except of course for illegal behavior) is to tax unwanted behavior and give tax breaks for desired behavior. Anything else requires lots of mandates and oversight. Then you are just burning tax money that could be used for better purposes - or better yet reducing the tax burden on the taxpayers. :)
If we assume that anyone (company or individual) that receives some benefit from the government is beholden to the same standards as the government (obviously enforced by the government) then we have just become slaves to the government. Because we all have received benefit from the government.
I should be able to determine the (legal) behavior I will allow in my house, I own it - even though the bank still has claim to it if I don't fulfill my obligation - that's the agreement I made with the bank. By the logic you used if the government was involved in my mortgage, they are involved in all mortgages BTW, then they could determine any and all opinions expressed in my house. Or whether or not I celebrate Christmas or Kwanzaa or Hanukkah or Festivus. And if you live in an apartment, or on campus, you really have no rights at all.
So I'll stick with receiving some benefit from the government while still claiming the right to determine my private behavior in my private space.
And yes Google is a public company, owned by private individuals who can boot the leadership out if they don't like what they are doing. Except of course the leaders are smart enough to keep their hands on enough stock to maintain control. So now the stock holders option is to dump the stock and boycott the product if they don't like it. And eventually (if enough people care) the company will disappear.
My discussion seemed to have drifted, I guess the topic is broader than I thought
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means
While it is rather unfortunate for Mr.Abbas, Google and Yahoo are completely justified in not wishing to be part of his activism/propaganda (as they case may be depending on your interpretation and inclinations).
In this case, Mr. Abbas is just whining, but any serious activism on the Internet depends on hosting your own server. That Mr.Abbas claims to spend 3 years on the Internet, without noticing that his activities make him subject to various ejections from all kind of services, cast a doubt on his ability to notice what is happening in the real world in general. These kinds of ejections are not new and all of us have heard stories of piracy sites (illegal, in a different way)being taken down by their web hosts.
If companies chose to do this for services owned by them, it is NOT censorship. If some party arm-twists the companies into doing it, then that party is exercising censorship. Mr.Abbas' battle is with such a third-party. Google and Yahoo are hardly to be blamed for this.
Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Briefly skimming the article in question... how exactly is Yahoo! involved in this?
The article's title is "YouTube suspends Egyptian blog activist's account". YouTube is not affiliated with Yahoo!.
-- "Tradition is the illusion of permanence."
There is an adult content flag for certain videos on Youtube for a reason.
What reason is that? No, really?
I like how the music video for Green Day's "Working Class Hero" has bleeped out "fuck", but has interviews with Darfur refugees talking about how many schoolgirls were raped and how many men were murdered.
Yeah, think of the children. Hearing the word "fuck" in the middle of a description of genocide could be bad for teh children.
Censorship in this country is seriously whack. It's not about protecting children, because it doesn't. It's an arbitrary blacklist, and it's one more way government and big media (which youtube is quickly becoming) can try to keep control over the people.
FUCK. THAT. SHIT.
Someone mistook Google for Yahoo
Quickly scan the article, where is yahoo mentioned? does slashdot editor ever check the source?
Um, duh? The FCC doesn't monitor the internet and Google owns their web space. So they can do what they please.
Your ad here.
Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
Of course, maybe the videos were causing them back-channel grief in Egypt or setting a dangerous example with some future strategy of theirs.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Boy what a pussy response. You work for Jerry Yang?
The original article didn't mention Yahoo! specifically, but other articles did:
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/7184
Yahoo! claimed that he was using his email accounts for spamming, so they shut him down.
The article does mention YouTube, but it doesn't seem to mention Yahoo at all. What am I missing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlpQjeGHeNw
this woman is being hurt but it has not been taken down yet .
Google and Yahoo choosing not to provide service to him is not even close.
Yeah, it is. It might not be government censorship, but, it still silenced him on a major forum. And besides, what are the odds that there wasn't any discussion between Google and the Egyptian government? As far as "rights" go, you might be able to make a case, but then perhaps not. As far them being "Family Oriented" - you really aren't serious are you? Or are you a troll for the Egyptian government?
Who cares, how does that make this guys videos any less of a violation of the TOS?
All your arguments fail.
No, what happened here is a user abused a service and lost privileges. Bellowing "censorship" like you're doing is EXACTLY what OP was complaining about, and yet still you don't get it.
He abused his privileges and lost them. The fact that it's political speech that you find important is irrelevant, it was an abuse of the TOS and it came down.
Um, what? Please explain this comment, as it strikes me as...well honestly, kind of dumb. Liveleak is an example that shows you're wrong.
Again, all you did was say it was censorship over and over. You did nothing to prove it, and advanced no relevant arguments that take this beyond a TOS violation.
For some reason Mubarak has managed to keep a very clean image, even though he is a brutal dictator not much better or worse than the rest of them. If I were to compare Syria and Egypt in brutality against political opposition I would probabely say Syria comes out on top. But Syria is "evil" and Egypt is an ally.
Btw. both countries are really nice tourism spots, so please don't let this all deter you from seeing the pyramids (and tell them you are from Canada, because the whole Iraq thing hasn't gone down too well with the middle east as a whole). So when it comes to policy marketing I guess Mubarak really trumps Bush.
Now the whole world knows how pro-censorship you are. ;)
Yahoo!
Where's some mod points when I need them? I wish there were more people out there like you.
we live in an age of private ownership ... everything is privately owned. we have no more public forum. therefore, i feel this is censorship. there are plenty of worse videos on youtube and yahoo. they should actually encourage people from across the world to post videos like this. it helped convict people of abuse. that is a positive thing. they could be reaping praise for this, but instead they remain silent. just like all the people that silently apposed the iraq war, now wish they were out there protesting like the rest of us. just like how yahoo conceded to the chinese government, they show their cowardice once again. this is why their stock is sinking like a stone and they are no longer the powerhouse they once were. but i'm dissappointed in google. they are usually much more progressive. i really hope they reconsider this. people do not want a pg verion of life. they want to see the real world. so that we can fix the real problems. i praise this blogger. hopefully he continues his courageous work.
And why is there a problem complaining about the complainers? Do one persons right to complain trump another's right? Aren't the people complaining about the people complaining about the people complaining over Youtube doing just the same? Is there a double standard or is complaining just a normal past time for people?
Sure, you're allowed to complain about the complainers. I was just complaining about the people complaining about the complainers.
Um yea, sorry if I took something out on you. I was getting fed up with people complaining about people complaining and just wanted to point out that they _are_ what they were complaining about.
I bet if we complain about people complaining about people complaining about complainers, we would not only get confused but also come full circle and end up complaining about what they were complaining about in the first place.
No shit. That was addresses in the GP post. The question it asked was: why the double standard? That's the salient point.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Depends on what you're complaining about.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I think Google and Yahoo may not be the right site for this anyway. They are for-profit companies that want to (and arguably need to) do business globally and therefore will adopt a least common denominator approach: if something is illegal in Egypt, Turkey, Russia, or China, there's a good chance that it will be removed. Also, if something is contrary to popular opinion, it may well get banned.
This kind of video needs to be (1) widely circulated and archived, and (2) put in the context of human rights efforts, (3) put outside the reach of government interference. So, I'd say P2P distribution and USENET is important. In addition, human rights organizations need to do more to create on-line archives and searchable sites.
You're talking bollocks.
Wikileaks, no DNS
The Muslim Arabs have been persecuting the native Egyptian Christians since the occupied that land more than a thousand years ago. Lately, it has been increasing. For Yahoo and YouTube to cooperate in this persecution of Christians and genocide of the ancient Egyptian people is surely illegal, and unquestionably immoral and despicable. I would strongly encourage boycotting both organizations.
Whining? About the brutal persecution of the ancient Egyptian people in Egypt by the Arab government? What kind of monster are you?
This new meme is stillborn.
There should be a (Score:-1, Crap) for these.
I get it fine. There are worse cases of censorship, to be sure, but drastically reducing the audience for coverage of human rights abuse? Censorship is the proper term.
Simple. People who go to Liveleak are people who make a point to inform themselves about these matters. They will have already taken the time to read relevant articles; they will know. For the video to be accessable to the general population, it needs to be on You Tube. And you've given no reasons why censoring someone because of a purported TOS violation isn't censorship. Instead, you're attempting to redefine "censorship" to mean something other than restricting political speech.Wikileaks, no DNS
Eh? How so? The content still showed up in a search. Further, it came up on a search for pink daises or whatever it was -- or are you just conveniently ignoring that part?
Censorship is the restriction of (well, okay, a little more than political speech). The kind of speech that is blocked is pretty clear to more people. There is no exact rule, but your example "Bush is bad..." is ridiculous because it is so very different from the kind of speech that we're talking about. Documenting torture is different, even if you can't make the boundary precise.
As for the rest, people can, in theory, go to Live Leak. So censorship by You Tube is less bad than censorship by (say) the US government, in that the information will still be avilable, albeit to far fewer people.
People don't in general move from their habitual sites, so a banning from You Tube is a severe restiction in availablity. Saying that you're being disingenuous is a short way of saying that you're describing an option that people don't take: an interesting theoretical possibility. That you're a troll is obvious, so I have already answered you; terseness is not a failure to reply.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
That's my point, there is no fucking double standard. One is violent, the other isn't.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Most proprietors were bigots (although they wouldn't have considered themselves bigots at the time), and smashing store windows and lynching the proprietor was not at all required to maintain segregated restaurants. Even the "boycotts" were just de facto as no organization was actually behind them. Any proprietor had two choices: (1) serve blacks, or (2) refuse service to blacks. If they served blacks, then the de facto boycott from whites meant that you served almost exclusively blacks, and if you didn't serve blacks then you served only whites. (Although I'm using the more modern term "blacks", back then they used the word "coloreds" which almost always included people of other ethnic backgrounds.)
Before the civil rights era, this system was maintained mainly without violence (there may have been some, but I'm not aware of any)—simple market forces sufficed. When things started changing, then there was some violence, but until laws were passed requiring you to serve blacks, the system worked mainly as before and mainly without any violence being necessary. The same market forces are at work today behind the phenomenon known as "white flight"—and no smashing windows or lynchings are required.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
See my other comments to you as to how we know from history that this is not a good idea. However, more fundamentally, freedoms are not black and white. By denying a store owner the right to discriminate based on race, we grant the consumer the right to eat where he or she wants regardless of race. That doesn't mean that all regulations are good, of course. It just means that some regulations allow more rights than they restrict. There's no such thing as this "free market" that many libertarians seem to worship. Just like idealized Marxism, it's pure mythology. Both presume certain characteristics of the average human that just don't exist. We're not rational beings, even when averaged out.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
No, your presumption is wrong. For a transaction to be non-coercive it must be voluntary for both sides. Just as the sellers shouldn't be allowed to force (would be) customers to buy, the buyers can not force the sellers to sell.
(Unfortunately, in addition to the cases of bigoted seller/black buyer, the government's clumsy attempts to repair the racial relations by legislation also allows Black sellers — such as workers, the sellers of their labor — to force customers — employers — to buy it.)
"Somewhat"... Ha-ha. So, we lost a significant freedom for a rather questionable gain... We exposed the businessmen to some very nasty potential lawsuits, but the racial segregation still perfectly exists — with the attempts to "mitigate" it, arguably, contributing to the Blacks' own prejudices and complexes and thus perpetuating the initial problem.
Well, right here your stance is inconsistent and thus wrong... I am all for encouraging business to sell equally to all and to hire workers independently of their race. But I am against legally forcing them to do so — just as you would not legally prohibit white households from leaving a neighborhood, when minorities start moving into it. Consistency requires the approach to both problem to be the same, yet you seem to favor legislation in one case, but not in the other...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Consistency for the sake of consistency is ridiculous. There are places for it, of course, and barring reasons not to be consistent one should strive to be consistent, but it should be one of the first things to go when there are good reasons to get rid of it.
It seems like your second sentence contradicts your first. Allowing people to not buy from someone based off their race (or to not hire someone based off their race) means that you're allowing the transaction to be voluntary for the other side as well. Note the word "allow" in my original sentence. Racist hiring practices would be part of a truly free-market system. If you don't see that, then I'm surprised.Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Actually, I did no such thing. I merely stated that consistency for the sake of consistency is counter-productive. I don't find advocating two different solutions for two different problems to be inconsistent. I find it to be wise. Using the same tool for every problem might be consistent, but it's hardly wise. You might find my solutions to be inconsistent, but I suspect that's because you don't recognize the differences in the problems. My main point with the quote is that even if it were inconsistent, that wouldn't make it a bad solution.
Do you understand how the two problems are different enough to merit different solutions?
This cuts to the center of our disagreement. In theory, it merely "could be". In practice, it definitely "would be". Just like communism, completely free markets are untenable in the real world. They both require faulty assumptions of human nature.Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Except that they both ARE violent. How can you possibly say with a straight face that tasering isn't violent?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Because you dont need a hospital? Or First aid?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Oh, so now you want to argue by analogy. But you are using a wrong one. The number of racist households is, if anything, larger than the number of racist business-owners. In fact, the numbers are of the same magnitude, which alone makes your analogy (of one scree vs. hundreds) invalid.
You better stick to the position, that there is nothing wrong with inconsistency... At least, that would be consistent :)
My stance has little to do with the American Constitution. I quoted (vis. "pursuit of happiness") not from the legal document, but from the preceding political one. It proclaimed the rights of all people, rather than those of US-citizens. These are: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
Although we agree, that the first right — to treat others as one sees fit (subject to their own above-listed rights, of course), including the right to be a bigot — exists, I must point out, that the second one — the right to be treated nicely by others — does not... Simply because it would be akin to guaranteeing the "right to Happiness" rather than only to pursuit thereof.
Well, yes, I got it from what you said. Tell me, how the following could be interpreted any different by anyone — even with a world-view you find agreeable. You wrote:
Not that an objective person needs your agreement to see the truth of the statement. While immigrants of all races do rather well upon coming here, the Blacks born-and-raised in this country lag severely behind.
A real right was sacrificed in the (vain) hope of achieving racial harmony... What was it about "losing both and deserving neither"?..
If we ever do achieve the racial harmony (a laudable goal, indeed), it will not be thanks to those non-discrimination laws.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I'm no fan of Sharpton (quite the opposite), but he would exist regardless of the laws. That he can express his opinion is not a flaw in our system, of course. We've made enough progress that perhaps we could remove some of our old laws as "training wheels", but they were absolutely necessary when they were enacted in the 60s and 70s. Affirmative action is one set of laws that I think could go now (the ones you're referring to in your comment about Powell and Rice). The "right" to discriminate based on race, however, is not one I'm ready to return. There still is a "freedom to be a bigot", of course, it's just there are certain places where you can't (easily) act on that bigotry, such as in deciding who you want to hire and who you want to serve.
If you had grown up here, I think some of these things would be more obvious to you then they are. We have not made tremendous progress in the last 15 years, although we have made some progress. (15 years ago, a lot more people considered it taboo to marry outside your race, for example. Part of the change is no doubt due to older generations dying off.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
> Because you dont need a hospital? Or First aid?
Yea, right.
Fucking pussy.
Grow some balls.
The pussification of American continues, with faggot liberals leading the charge.