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.
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
This internal decision was made because of the internal management who decided that they like the internally spent money from their internal bank account which was transferred from an unkown party, internally. Or they simply don't want to lose the internal bonus if Egypt decides to block YouTube nationwide, strictly internally speaking.
The article states that videos with gratuitous or graphic violence is against YouTube's TOS and that is why the account was suspended.
Speedy thing goes in; speedy thing comes out.
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++;
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
In this case though, they should allow them because the graphic nature serves a greater purpose to humanity. In other words, if their policy is hiding a truth that people need to know, they should not apply their policy in that case.
In this case though, they should allow them because the graphic nature serves a greater purpose to humanity. In other words, if their policy is hiding a truth that people need to know, they should not apply their policy in that case.
Don't you think that opens up a bigger can of worms? Applying TOS to some things, and not others, regardless of truth or intent or anything else that is intangible like that seems to me to be dangerous. Apply the TOS across the board, or change the TOS. That should be the only 2 choices.
Speedy thing goes in; speedy thing comes out.
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.
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
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?
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!
I guess you didn't read my post or any of the information I linked.
If you had you would have realized I am talking about early 1930's Germany for the most part. Germany was a parliamentary democracy, fairly liberal and very similar to the U.S. today. Way before Hitler and before the National Socialist party was anything but an outsider. You could easily have the conversation and compare it to ANY fascist state that used to be a democracy and closed in on itself; Italy in the 20's, Russia in the 30's, East Germany in the 50's etc.
Since you mention the Constitution, there are laws being passed as we speak (already passed this year and proposed right now) that dismantle and subvert the constitution.
But as a matter of fact, there are direct links between Hitler, Hitler's financier and Prescott Bush, our current president's grandfather. Prescott Bush was involved in a coup attempt in the U.S. to overthrow FDR. The attempted coup was financed by the same man who financed Hitler. Congressional hearings at the time have evidence of this.
BBC Reference
Furthermore, the movement within the U.S. government has directly used tactics, imagery, phrases and ideas from fascist Germany in current times and it's directly related to the things that I'm talking about.
I call Bullshit on your pompous invocation of Godwin's law and ask that you at least dig around a bit before responding.
PODCASTof a radio interview the Alex Jones show for further reference.
Liberty.
"I guess you didn't read my post or any of the information I linked."
:)
No, I didn't read Woolf's book or listen to her speech. I've heard the arguments a dozen times before. You pick a few conditions leading up to Nazi Germany, then compare them to the current administration's policies. It's sloppily researched propaganda. See here:
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1933392797/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?_encoding=UTF8&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R28W0R1KUAZR0H
And here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
"Germany was a parliamentary democracy, fairly liberal and very similar to the U.S. today."
No, it was pretty friggin far from the current state of the US. For one, unemployment in Germany was at a staggeringly high 30% in 1932. It's at about 4.5% in the US currently, trending down in the last four years. I bet if you do a little more research, you could find other, rather significant, ways 1930 Germany != 2000 USA. Unless, of course, you are only looking for similarities.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERunemployment.htm
"Since you mention the Constitution, there are laws being passed as we speak (already passed this year and proposed right now) that dismantle and subvert the constitution."
Laws cannot dismantle the constitution, only constitutional amendments can. Stupid laws get passed all the time, mainly to increase the power of the state over it's citizens. Welcome to 20th/21st century USA.
"But as a matter of fact, there are direct links between Hitler, Hitler's financier and Prescott Bush, our current president's grandfather."
That's nice, what does it have to do with anything?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html
More or less.
"Within a year you will hear this happen to an American blogger and many people will defend the action."
It happens all the time in all types of media. It doesn't matter as long as it's not the government suppressing speech. I can easily visit anarchist, communist, fascist, racist, theocratic, liberal, conservative, and UFO cult religion websites with impunity - where is the organized suppression of thought here? Then again, a lot of media outlets are making a heap of money skewering the Bush regime, maybe it's a conspiracy!
"Furthermore, the movement within the U.S. government has directly used tactics, imagery, phrases and ideas from fascist Germany in current times and it's directly related to the things that I'm talking about."
I'm not sure what "Movement" you are talking about, but the political tactics used by Germany have been around before Nietzsche and Machiavelli. I'm not saying it's right, but it certainly isn't a new development, or something indicating a swing toward fascism.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html
(Again)
"I call Bullshit on your pompous invocation of Godwin's law and ask that you at least dig around a bit before responding."
I did dig around and found that you are even more wrong than I originally thought. I suggest you link to websites that provide data to back your arguments, not to other people making the same argument as you.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html
I suggest you read Chomsky, he does some halfway decent research and uses citations, even if his conclusions are utterly wrong.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
And we are entitled to complain about it - we are entitled to publically state that what they are doing is immoral - we are entitled to think much less of the companies involved - we are entitled to ask them for an explanation - we are entitled to use other services.
What you appear to suggest is "don't complain, just use someone else". You seem to think that complaining has no effect. That's not true, though - clever companies listen to complaints even before the users abandon their services. They change their behaviour not only when it's already costing them money, but also when it appears likely that it might do so. Apart from that - raising the issue gets other people interested, and that puts even more pressure on the company involved.
Voicing our opinions is one of our fundamental rights. Exercising this right may occasionally have negative consequences for companies doing immoral things. Tough cookies if their shareholders don't like it.