Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Bans Terrorist Training Videos
Virtual_Raider sends in an Australian news story that begins "Terrorist training videos will be banned from appearing on YouTube, under revised new guidelines being implemented by the popular video-sharing site. The Google-owned portal will ban footage that advertises terrorism or extremist causes and supporters of the change hope it will blunt al-Qaeda's strong media online campaign. The move comes after pressure... from Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman... [T]he new YouTube guidelines includes bans on videos that incite others to commit violent acts, videos on how to make bombs, and footage of sniper attacks."
... no more Rick Roll videos, I am all for it.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
how they'll implement the checking. Do you think they'll check each video that's uploaded or do you think it'll be based on a trust system?
e.g.
[ ] This is a terrorist training video.
You'd check the box if you weren't sure. It'll make YouTube's life easier...
Summation 2
I guess this means no more pro-life, but lets shoot the abortionist type videos
The internet has become a powerful tool for terrorism recruitment. What was once conducted at secret training camps in Afghanistan is now available to anyone, anywhere because of the web.
Chatrooms are potent recruitment tools, but counterterrorism officials have found terrorist-sponsored videos are also key parts of al-Qaeda's propaganda machine.
There have been online terror-training videos ranging from how to slit a victim's throat and how to make suicide vests to how to make explosives from homemade ingredients and how to stalk people and ambush them, said Bruce Hoffman, a counterterrorism expert and professor at Georgetown University.
suddenoutbreakofcommonsense
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
See how long it takes for them to censor videos on howto run homebrew tools on Wii/Xbox/PS/DS/Pandora...
This just adds a bit of legitimacy to their cause. Now they can rightfully claim that they are being persecuted and censored. This is the same as what happens in parts of Europe where all things related to Nazis and Hilter are banned.
It just drives it underground and gives it more street cred. If these things are out in the open it is a lot easier to keep tabs on and to criticize it which in turn makes it more likely that people will see it for the bullshit it really is.
What ever the problem, censorship is almost never the answer.
siener's youtube channel
Yeah, right... I wonder if they are going to ban christian terrorist videos - bombing family planning clinics, killing doctors, gruesome abortion footage, etc.
The Google-owned portal will ban footage that advertises terrorism or extremist causes and supporters of the change hope it will blunt al-Qaeda's strong media online campaign.
So who makes the determination what constitutes "extremist"? Would this guy be an extremist because he stands up for what he believes in while fighting what he believes are the US' illegal search and seizures on US soil?
I'm sure the government thinks he's an extremist -- will Google?
If it's wrong to post videos that are propaganda for an organization that commits criminal acts of war, then shouldn't they ban videos of Army successes in Iraq?
After all, the U.S. invaded Iraq without just cause, making it an illegal war.
But how does youtube define "Terrorists"
Enemies of the USA? (Banning Islamic military videos)
Enemies of Islam?(Banning USA military videos)
and piss off Senator Joseph Lieberman. I won't condone Terrorism (or at least the US government's own vague definition of terrorism - I bet many Iraqis find the myriad army videos on YouTube akin to terrorist training videos) However, free speech is something else entirely. It's important. I personally find the hard right Christian nuts on YouTube quite nauseating too, I don't want to have them banned because their views hinder my atheist agenda. Likewise, if some nutcase in the Middle East wants to spout his nonsense, let him. Most of us aren't listening. So, it's either all allowed or none is allowed, as far a free speech goes. This is one step down the slippery road.
When do they start burning books?
Truly, comrade, this is a day of glorious victory!
We have cleansed al-Qaeda's videos from Youtube and have set their agents fleeing! While some may hide their terroristic videos on liveleak or any of these websites, the days of the insurgency and radical Muslim warriors are at an end!
God Bless the USA!
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
far better to keep it up front so that everybody knows what is going on. THis will simply move to another site.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Is this really necessary? I mean, prior to this recommendation, was Google/YouTube receptive to "terrorist" or "extremist" videos being posted on their site? I'm all for trying to keep that kind of trash off the internet where one can (and with proper controls so the process doesn't get abused and applied to things other than "terrorist" threats) but this just sounds kind of like a silly policy that states the obvious. Just sounds like some politicking to me. Not to mention the fact that there are so many other places that this stuff lurks, I'm not sure how significant this would be.
I actually find it hard to believe they actually let these videos on there for so long. It was stupid to begin with.
No, they'll just be using their routers. Packets for terrorist training videos, per RFC 3514, will have their evil bit set.
My blog
With the current admin, those are called freedom fighters. With the next admin, that may change.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I give it a day or two before Scientology starts augmenting its fraudulent DMCA takedown notices, adding the charge that its critics are "extremists" and thus worthy of censorship.
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
I would be. It's not like the training videos are a new thing. They've existed before youtube, and will continue to exist after. Better to have it out in the open than underground, imo.
Yeah, people/cities/countries succeed only because the government makes it happen.
Go back to China you fucktard.
Sometimes common sense, uncommon thought it may be, just has to prevail...
looks like this may help Scientology to pull down more Anonymous videos.
but yea its still censorship. and censorship is bad. mmmkay
Sorry, but any speech or press that doesn't DIRECTLY deprive another person of life, liberty, or property should be protected in any and every form.
to start up terrorismtube.com and howtomakebombstube.com
interestingly enough, snipertube.com already exists
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
"I think he really cares"
liquidpele, you are a fucking piece of garbage.
The number of just pure fucked in the head shits like you out in the world is too fucking depressing.
The scumbag Lieberman is hijacking US media to further the nuclear armed Israel war against the Arab and Muslim world you fuck.
Give me a break, when was the last time you heard of a clinic getting bombed? It was a handful of nut jobs, and they are in prison. Clinton tightened the regulations on distance from the clinic, and protests kind of faded. They have adopted less confrontational approaches.
It probably feels good to go on Slashdot and compare Christians to Al Qaeda, you could go diary on Daily Kos and get told how wonderful you are, but it would be the same BS as here.
There is zero comparison between people protesting an abortion clinic and some people going too far than an organized movement to kill civilians haphazardly to advance a political agenda.
On some level you have to realize that the "internal justification" of the anti-abortion murderers is their belief that they are preventing murder, while the Islamist Terrorists are pursuing an agenda of despotism and establishing a Caliphate military dictatorship. The former are targeting the specific people that they believe are currently in the process of taking a life (in the view of the actor), the latter are looking to kill or maim as many as possible.
Not justifying the abortion clinic attacks, just suggesting that the actions were at least targeted at preventing what they consider a wrong, while the terrorists we are fighting are NOT targeted at preventing a wrong (I'd suggest that their attacks on our troops aren't terrorism, just asymmetrical warfare, our troops are a valid military target, for that reason I'm hard pressed to classify the hit on the Pentagon as a terrorist attack since it's a military target)... they may have a goal that they believe in, but their methodology is simply evil.
They banned a video that was disclaiming the scientology religion to be a fraud,
now they are banning videos that help people train for their religion....sort of.
I hope they ban all religious based videos including scientology videos trying to
reach out to new members.
Fair is fair , no?
They're not going to ban Jedi training videos as well, are they? After all, they're part of the rebellion.
they should ban terrorist promotional videos too,
like LTTE promotional videos and such,who ever harbored or helped terrorists in the name of liberation fighters or in the name of democracy already got results for doing so and some of them still getting and yet to get.terrorism is terrorism no icing can make it good.
[T]he new YouTube guidelines includes bans on videos that incite others to commit violent acts, videos on how to make bombs, and footage of sniper attacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxlqsCPN-78
omg violence sniper attaxplz remoov kthx
A terrorist training camp spontaneously starting up because of some youtube videos would be just as likely as me starting my personal army based on 'Call Of Duty" (the video game). I mean, the game is good, but it alone is not going to convince me that war is the new cool thing to do.
That being said Google is free to do whatever it wants; this is just politics (as an above poster already pointed out).
You think it's just for attention? I think he really is a right-wing nutbar.
There, fixed that for you.
Does this mean that the multitude of videos posted by/for/about the US military, considered by some parts of the world to be terrorists, will be taken down?
Why is it ok to show propaganda for the US military but not another military force? One could argue that the US military has killed far more people than "the terrorists" have.
Thats no to say that I support "the terrorists", but lets be realistic.
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
terrorists, of course.
it would seem that smut & child porn would be causing more (long term), unrepairable damage than a handful of lunatics, who must be dealt with in person as needed?
television trains US/our children to be violent/hate.
So, this is the end for the Mentos® + Diet Coke® videos then?
So they're going to ban Mythbusters clips now? I mean, last week they showed how to make an improvised explosive using coffee creamer as the fuel. This week, they determined the necessary explosive amount required to blow up your average genetically-altered great white shark (albeit under the watchful eye of a California bomb squad.)
Seriously, a bomb is fuel, oxidizer, and a containment vessel. Technically, the propane tank on your barbecue grill counts as a "bomb" in the right context.
The Evil bit is meant for packets and routers, not for entire files/streams, read the document you linked!
However, I understand your general idea, and expansion of the Evil Bit could be the Evil Byte for IPv6, and be made mandatory in any file system.
8-bits
1 - Evil ( Must be set to 1 if )
2 - Partially Evil ( must be set to 1 if part of a greater evil, even if not evil in itself)
4 - Dangerous ( must be set to 1 if contents has potential to kill, destroy or otherwise cause harm)
8 - Terrorist ( must be set to 1 if Terrorist, wrongful 0 will give sender "Unlawful Combatant"-status)
16- Offensive ( must be set to 1 if an average American Housewife of Evangelical denomination will take offense by the contents)
32- Copyright Infringement( must be set to 1 if the content infringes on intellectual property rights )
64- [reserved for future use]
128 - Humour Bit (must not be set to 1, security is no joke!)
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
Yeah, China is the destination for people whose opinions about political systems differ from yours. Go back to Russia, intolerance-tard.
...then only outlaws will have outlaw videos.
Freedom of Speech means freedom for everyone. Yes this includes and is not restricted to; Terrorists, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, stalkers, bomb makers, nazis and holocaust deniers.
I do not have to apologise for saying these people have a right to speak. You need to apologise for suggesting that they should not have that right.
If you want rights for some and not for others, go live in Saudi Arabia or China or Russia. But of you right rights for all the people, then you need to stand up for those rights no matter who they are taken from.
May the Maths Be with you!
They find the terrorist training videos by using a sophisticated algorithm that can recognize any image of monkey bars.
However, Freedom fighter training videos will still be OK.
sex videos are less offensive then terrorist training videos and since sex videos are against the rules.....
So this really is not a news worth article.
That will work when the world finally migrates to IP v6 in 2097 AD.
Obviously, i failed at setting the humour bit correctly, it should of course be zero at all times.
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
> Is this really necessary?
Yes. YouTube was lousy with the stuff. You could find the stuff without much effort.
>...this just sounds kind of like a silly policy that states the obvious.
It should have been obvious, but it wasn't. This actually is a major policy change for Google. And it isn't like they had a leg to stand on, because they DO censor YouTube already. Ask anybody who has ever posted a politically incorrect video, especially one critical of the Islamic terrorists, about how open Google is. It was only a matter of somebody with enough standing to call them out on it, once Lieberman shined a light on em the rats had to run.
Democrat delenda est
This is deeply troubling. If a citizen of a sovereign nation takes up arms with his neighbors to drive out an occupying force, is he a terrorist? There are Americans who participate in this sort of training regularly under perfectly legal conditions, and I wonder if they will be banned from Youtube under this new policy, as well.
So does this mean Linux how-to videos are now illegal? I KID! I KID! They always were illegal under obscenity laws anyway.
Your own nation was formed via the violent overthrow of a government, and it guarantees you the right to do the same if your government becomes oppressive.
Do you feel that is "extremist"?
At what point does a "whacko" become a "freedom fighter"? There is such a point, you know. Not everything is legitimate just because your government rules it so.
That's interesting. I guess I've never searched for "how to make a suicide vest" on YouTube, so I have no basis for how much/little of this stuff was on their site. It's sad that there should have to be such a policy change to keep this type of stuff relegated to the "darker corners", but if what you say is true, I guess it wasn't an obvious requirement to Google or YouTube.
Get anything that he has on youtube removed! We don't want anyone else hurt.
...the magic words of Terrorism and Religion change the rules completely. I am not going to watch a training video and then go blow up a government building because I suddenly became radicalized, so why are they being taken down? Okay, so maybe we need to think of the children, so lets at least flag it as adult so net nanny will filter it out.
;-)
What really irks me is these (factual) videos are being censored yet on youtube there are thousands of (non factual, religious extremist)videos claiming the Earth (nay, universe) is 6,000 years old that are not being taken down.
So in conclusion we either take down all offensive videos (leaving just dramatic gopher and rambling blogs) and slowly creep towards thought police or we have to allow freedom of speech, I think that might be in a couple of European countries constitutions, oh and some union in North America
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
I dunno. I'm in Germany, where nazi things are as forbidden as it can possibly get, but I'm not aware of neo-nazis having much street cred or too many people thinking of them as freedom fighters. From the limited and flawed sample I have, it seems to me like there are more neo-nazis, white-supremacists and the like per capita in the USA where it's not forbidden.
Bear in mind that most of Europe has been fucked up hard by WW2. You yanks know WW2 as this war that happened somewhere else, you had a one or two hundred thousand soldiers total, and generally it mostly happened to somewhere else. Here it's a lot closer to home. Germany got not only to lose over 5.5 million soldiers in the war and over 1.5 million civillians in the firebombings, but got to deal with the whole Gestapo and all first hand. There are familes who've had a member or two gassed by Hitler just because they had some chronic disease when that eugenics program was tried.
Now there _are_ a few nostalgiacs about that time, and a few trolls posing as neo-nazis, but on the whole there just isn't that much reason to pine for those times. Which would kind of be required for them to have any significant amount of "street cred."
Germany largely went pacifist and socialist after the war, mostly as a result of still remembering the war and the far-right dictatorship. (Not unlike the USA went pacifist after WW1, but without the isolationism aspect.)
Other countries have even less reasons to cheer for it. France has been bombed by us in one direction, and then by the Allies on the way back. I haven't done a poll there, so I might be talking out the arse, but I don't think many of them pine for those times. And forbidding nazi symbols and the like, doesn't seem to have made people pine for those times more.
Now there seems to be a signifficant amount of French nationalism, but really that's actually mis-labelled. France's "nationalism" and "right wing" aren't as much about nation or race, as about language and culture. The theme doesn't seem as much "go home if you're not white or French" as "go home if you don't freaking want to learn French." In a lot of countries that wouldn't even be considered "nationalism" or "right wing", but rather the baseline as expectations go.
Just about the only countries where racism and nationalism have made a come-back are in the former Eastern Bloc. But there it's not forbidden, so you can't blame it on that.
Finally, note that it's somewhat misleading to paint it as Europe forbidding it _all_ or that it's not allowed to talk about it in the open. We still have documentaries, books about it, and learn history in schools, ya know? So, yes, it is very much possible "to keep tabs on and to criticize it which in turn makes it more likely that people will see it for the bullshit it really is". Most of it, at least. All that's forbidden is nazi propaganda/hate-speech and, depending on the country, the sale or public display of crooked crosses and other nazi symbols.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Religious fanatics already see their cause as legitimate...they all seem to have this persecution complex. I don't really think that some videos taken off of the internet is going to amplify that complex as much as - say - invading their countries and killing their family members.
...is another man's freedom fighter. The speed that politics moves, I wouldn't want to have to be the guy who chooses what's allowed and what's not. Who knows which groups the next president of the USA considers to be "evil terrorists" or "democracy loving freedom fighters".
I guess that's the last we see of Sarah Palin. :(
What a bunch of cowards. The only party thats going to loose something from this is Youtube. When the "think of the childred / beware of the terrorist boogeyman" crowd is finished all thats left is kittens, bad singing and political campaign material.
A couple of years down the road a move to China will probably improve the ability to speak freely. Its a strange world we live in.
HTTP/1.1 400
Senator of Connecticut? Sounds like serious pressure!
So now instead of posting on YouTube - they post on TerroristTube? Or AlQuedaTube?
Really, what's the difference where they post? They're gonna keep doing it until whatever it is they're bitching about gets changed...
Might as well stop trying to get them to blow shit up, sit down with the fools and say "Hey, WTF is it gonna take to stop this shit?"
Maybe, just maybe, we can work it out somehow?
Time to take down those videos of MLK and his agitators espousing mass chaos and social disruption with his guerrilla warfare tactic of "civil disobedience." That's the trouble with banning terrorists or the "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" line. People/government have an annoying tendency to re-define "terrorist" and "wrong." What else can we ban? If not MLK, then what about Malcolm X? The NRA? The National Organization of Women for their support of mass-murder, err I mean abortion?
I'd rather put up with a million KKK or terrorist videos just to make sure the next MLK, Ghandi, or societal conscience can be heard. Isn't that the real point behind the Freedom of Speech?
I believe terrorize means provoking fear in others by means of threathening life, health, family, property, the mental balance, and other things people hold dear.
I know many governments including the one of USA disagree with this definition as it obviously also include the countries own use of force.
Many on this forum would likely think of RIAA as a mafia organization terrorizing people who don't have resources to protect themselves. "Pay, or we will ruin your life (innocent or not)".
How long til the first movies of people wearing Transformers T-shirts being removed due to the toy image holding a gun? Obviously some people got so afraid for such a T-shirt already that they had them change or not being able to board their plane...
What about home movies of people playing with chemistry sets at home? Could be training materials for making bombs, or chemical weapons you know...
Don't ban others speech. Speak better than them.
Censorship is an act of desperation on the part of a losing ideology... and I hardly think that's applicable here.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Lieberman is a Senator from Connecticut... if you think it's even POSSIBLE to be a right-wing nutbar senator from Connecticut... do I need to finish that?
I guess to a left-wing nutbar, everyone else is a right-wing nutbar.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
If YouTube/Google really wanted to help stop terrorism, then they would work with Government officials to collect information on the whereabouts and identity of those posting 'terrorist' videos.
Then the problem quickly becomes, what is a terrorist video? Is my video about a remote control car shooting fireworks ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YfDiHIeLGk ) a terrorist video, and are the CIA/FBI going to pay me a visit?
I certainly hope not. But, I wouldn't be surprised.
Check out our infosecurity industry blog: http://securitymusings.com/
really too bad...
I realise saying good to censorship is often seen as taboo on Slashdot, but I do not think this is about whether YouTube should or shouldn't censor anymore, that decision was made long ago so I don't think this is a question of whether to censor or not to censor anymore.
I say good because as the decision to censor YouTube has long been set in stone it's also long been clear that there is a horrific bias in the censorship there. Pro-scientology propaganda is allowed but anti-scientology propaganda regularly gets removed. Pro-islamic extremism propaganda has long been allowed yet any anti-Islamic propaganda has often been removed.
I must make this clear, I absolutely don't advocate anti-Islamic propaganda because I think it only serves to increase hatred between factions and incite the whole situation but what I did think utterly stank is that anti-Western propaganda was allowed to flourish whilst the alternate and opposing extreme, anti-Islamic propaganda was removed as offence. I find it worrying that the burning of a Koran has up until now been classified by YouTube as more offensive than the sniping in the head of a US soldier.
This is at least a good first step towards sanity, if YouTube can balance it's pro-Scientology slant by reinstating anti-Scientology videos or outright removing pro and anti-Scientology videos then the service will be a lot more respectable.
It's still not ideal of course because as this was pushed through by a screaming politician it's still all about who shouts the loudest. At least both sides are shouting loud enough for YouTube to impose an equal policy on the matter now though on this issue at least.
...so if someone posts footage of the RNC convention on YT, would they have to remove the 9/11 "tribute" video that showed the attacks? Wouldn't that be "lib'ral censorship" of the Republicans? Or would they leave it up and be helping the terrorists?
Either way, they should remove all footage of Lieberman speeches. That man's voice is a scourge on the cause of staying awake.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Terrorist Training Manual
Step 1. Step in front of a Cement Truck moving at high speeds.
Guns are for wimps... Use a crossbow.. this way you can pin them to their chair when you go postal.
jesus camps included?
i'd leave the videos up, and have google regularly feed me the ips of whomever watches them
the videos will be gotten, youtube or not
so it is far better for youtube to function as a honeypot, rather than not to have any value at all
of course 99% of viewers will be harmless curious dorks. its the datamining correlation with activity on a given ip address that is of interest for homing in on that 1%
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
we're all terrorists until proven otherwise.
I see that videos showing Rachel Corrie's murder by D9 ("I hit an object") are still up. It's good to know it wasn't terrorism. Man that Lieberman has got some juice. We all better hope he doesn't get pissed Star Wars or something. How many states are there in America again?
Since the people of the Palestinian Territories have been given camcorders to record atrocities committed by the Israeli Defense Forces, perhaps this is really aimed at preventing dissemination of videos of Israelis shooting at unarmed Palestinians (including children).
Or maybe the video from the Afghan Wedding Massacre was the catalyst? Just a thought.
"Except during the nine months before he draws his first breath,
no man manages his affairs as well as a tree." - George Bernard Shaw
I thought the majority of it was in the Pacific War, though? Which didn't have as much to do with Nazism as such, although admittedly the Japanese could be just as brutal.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
My country's war dead were more than 400,000; the total number of troops the U.S. committed to the war effort was more like 16 million.
I am not one of those Americans who likes to claim a lot of credit for what my ancestors did 60 years ago, but it's clear that your idea of how World War II affected America is as far off as many Americans' idea of how the war affected Europe.
That said, I would agree with the basic point of what you said; American casualties were less than a tenth of German casualties, and the U.S. didn't get split in half for 50 years. And most Americans do underestimate the cultural impact of that aftermath.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
But, but-- think of the children!! All the children that will no longer be able to fulfill their lifelong dreams and train themselves to be terrorists!
Won't someone think of the children!??!
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
How, exactly, are we to interpret this sentence if not that terrorism is a fundamental human right?
Seastead this.
Or are we working on another "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" here?
And it seems to me that psychological terrorism could apply to an interesting range of things-- an al-Qaeda rant or an "evil empire" or veiled "all our options are on the table" rant from an American president for example.
If anyone wonders how the fuck a lunatic like McCain has anything above single digit support just look at this nutcase writing disgusting crap like this.
Wackos like alexhmit01 should remind everyone just how critical getting out to vote is this time.
Using a jewish propaganda outlet (youtube) to further anti-jewish propaganda. No wonder Lieberman is incensed.
It's good to know uncle Sam finally protects our eyes from horrible images that may damage the warm and cozy feeling that this pasteurized life gives us. So we don't have to see ever again what the world really looks like outside this beautifull bubble we like to call America.
Corporate US is the new Nazi Germany. Get over it.
10 steps to close down an open society. Long but it's worth it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_46695.html
Let me revise my first statement. It wasn't the overthrow of a government, but it WAS the violent ouster of a foreign government. The English crown was not overthrown, but they sure as hell were kicked out. After a LOT of blood and violence.
As for law, the documents speak for themselves. While we may not explicitly have laws that allow violent overthrow of government, our Declaration of Independence does explicitly state that there are times when it is necessary.
It doesn't matter whether you're American or not. Freedom of speech is an ideological high ground, and accepted by most people to be a good thing(tm). This isn't about terrorists not having rights, it's about people not having the right to terrorize. Your freedoms stop at the point where they start to encroach on someone else's liberty.
I believe in protecting freedom of speech, but I also agree with youtube's decision to remove terrorist training videos and instructions on making bombs. No one benefits from this information being on youtube. If you want to learn these things then you should learn them from a human being, who will hopefully reject students of bad intention, and impart some morality along with the knowledge to do harm.
There's no accountability in a system such as youtube, and we need to be held accountable for distributing and using this kind of information.
But Israel, being a nation that is widely respected amongst those in the developed world, does not engage in terrorism. They do not target civilians nor do they seek to scare a population. Their attacks are only aimed at destroying the ability for their enemies to make war against them.
"Israel is a colonialist-imperialist phenomenon. There is no such thing as an Israeli people. Before 1948, world geography knew of no state such as Israel. Israel is the result of an invasion, of aggression." - Muammar al-Gaddafi
So just who are we Christians supposed to believe? And why should we be siding with anyone, let alone jews over muslims...
I guess they don't see the hypocrisy of condemning the capitalist, American way of life by using YouTube as a terrorist training medium.
What they should do is get a court order to track down where these were posted from.
As they get ore comfortable, they will get sloppy.
Now they've been driven more underground.
Plus this infringes on freedom of speech.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
However, in AD 2101 war was beginning...
lol.
No more Bu$h and his gang videos on youtube, and i would guess the military will also be banned from posting videos trying to make killers out of boys and girls.
Don't worry it's in the definition queue right behind - good, evil, freedom, equality, interstate commerce, and porn
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Actually, Al Qaeda (as opposed to its offshoots) has been reduced to a media organisation that produces little other than propaganda videos. This will probably be a decent blow against them.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
The beauty of youtube was that anybody could post anything and it got popular because lots of stuff that would never make the press got coverage.
Senator Liberman: if you don't like what you are watching, go watch something else and leave us the option to watch it.
Youtube has peaked and from here it can only go down... it is time for opentube, a not for profit, distributed video serving system that cannot be censored by anybody.
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
I haven't seen that movies, but that's largely inaccurate.
1. The Nazis didn't get a majority in the parliament. In '32 the NSDAP got 37.4% of the votes in Juli, but it had already declined to 33% when new elections had been called in November.
So it's hardly fair to say that the majority of Germans had voted for the Nazis. A disappointingly large number, yes, but not a majority.
2. You have to realize that a lot of this was mostly voting in (a stupidly misguided) protest at the other discredited parties, rather than voting for genocide.
3. You also have to bear in mind that Hitler was quite a two faced fellow. His party claimed to be "Socialist" right in the party name to win the workers' votes, while at the exact same time secretly promising the industry bigwigs to outlaw unions and reduce the workers' rights. He had no problem with pretending to be anything that got him popularity or power. (He had been diagnosed a psychopath in WW1, btw.)
I think far more Germans voted for the "Socialist" part than anything else about that party.
(Boy, were they wrong. Immmediately after he managed to secure power, Hitler did outlaw unions and turned the workers' (and generally everyone's) right to nearly nothing at all. The largely socialist SA faction was purged in the infamous "Night of the Long Knives." Etc.)
4. The hatred agenda wasn't _that_ much popularized. It wasn't exactly secret, but most of the propaganda at that point hammered on two points: more power to the workers, and hatred towards the Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1 on catastrophic terms for Germany. While he made no secret of his dislike for Jews, what he hammered far more on was, "hate the French for the treaty they imposed on us."
5. Even after they were comfortably in power, the Nazis didn't exactly advertise the holocaust. The Eugenics program was all but secret, as it proved hugely unpopular with the German population. The Anti-Semite propaganda generally used euphemisms like sending them back to their land, or generally anywhere else, rather than telling everyone about the brutal holocaust. The "special units" which conducted the pogroms were kept very separate from the Army (Wehrmacht; the SS was not the Army, it was a paramilitary organization) and strictly on a voluntary basis, as it was correctly assessed that it would completely ruin morale if the Army was drafted into doing that.
Now I'm not saying that Germany as a whole doesn't bear some of the guilt there. It does. But there was a carefully constructed wall of plausible deniability, and keeping it as at most something incidentally happening in parallel, rather than as the whole point of the war or of the government. What they hammered on even later was stuff like stopping the spread of communism in Europe, by stopping the Red Army. Nobody put in the official propaganda that they're slaughtering Soviet peasants and prisoners by the million.
What I'm trying to say is that for the average German it was more like something he could choose not to think about, or many probably genuinely didn't even know about, than a case of, "hell yeah! Good thing we elected the Nazis to do that!"
Well, I'm not trying to minimize your country's contribution. Lend-Lease was probably far more important to the fate of the war than the actual troops in Europe, for example, and the B17s did a fine job at tying up inordinate resources to defend against them. Just saying that it's probably not that up close and personal, so to speak.
It's one thing to know that it happens, and it's another to have two grandfathers that got crippled in that war. The latter makes one a lot less likely to pine for a repeat of it, if millions of people are in
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Obviously, i failed at setting the humour bit correctly, it should of course be zero at all times.
Nah, but you failed at debugging your own comment, because your original comment said the humour bit (must not be set to 1).
I don't know if Homeland Security has recruiting videos on YouTube, but their whole job is to make people afraid, so they certainly should be banned.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The most honorable Senator Joseph Isadore Lieberman would certainly not promote widespread media censorship and bullying of the press concerning so-called ''anti-semitic' 'self-hate' views on Middle East issues...
All of this may end up affecting no more than a few bomb-making tutorials and turbant fashion-shows, non?
Anyway, Senator Lieberman deserves much praise for his deep concern about videos disseminating propaganda and showing `gratuitous violence or people getting "hurt, attacked, or humiliated."'.
Finally, we should not forget some valuable insight on "the domestic radicalization process" which, with Joseph Lieberman as Chairman, the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has included in the report "Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat". Apart from minor detais on player identification, the four-stage model in page 4 seems remarkably insightful when confronted with recent US history and even with the good Senator's own radicalizing messages. Will such 'aiding and abetting' discourse be removed from YouTube as part of the ongoing un'unamerican' First Amendment Amendment?
Does that mean all videos of 9/11 will be removed?
YouTube is a private service and they can ban whatever content they please - legally and ethically.
Morally, they're pretty much spot on. It's called "being socially responsible."
If the terrorists want to post videos, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. They're perfectly free to run their own video-hosting service.
An irony worth pointing out is that they almost certainly don't have government-protected freedom of speech in the countries where they're making these videos.
What's the kerfuffle really about? Sure, terrorists have rights. But so do the folks who run YouTube, and they're not obligated to host stuff they don't want to host. They're not a government-run service where "freedom of speech" even comes into play.
Now that American protesters can be charged as terrorists (such as in Ramsey County, MN) as seen at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/rnc-protesters.html, how long until all politically dissenting videos are blocked from YouTube as well?
Better watch out regardless, based on one of the charges used against the protesters, jaywalkers get a free trip to Gitmo (for disrupting traffic).
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Yeah, free speech and unpopular ideas suck. I only want to see lolcats.
My other car is first.
After all, they are definitely encouraging people to go commit violence in Afghanistan and Iraq and (in their wet dreams) Iran.
Same with all the footage of U.S. helicopters shooting people with 30 mm cannons, or dropping 500 lb bombs on weddings.
Here I thought they had to have a header containing 1010011010.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Don't ban them. Instead, replace the original with a edited copy that has a laugh track like those from the corniest sitcom mixed in with the audio. A few good goofy sound effects at strategic points in the video would go over well too.
I think that humiliating these turds is the way to go.
Since Turkey and Iran couldn't ban certain youtube videos they simply censored access to whole youtube. That was news all over the world and now what's happening is exactly the same thing just implemented more smoothly.
Let me guess that AIPAC is a huge contributor to the list. There's a difference between rational support for that area of the world, and the fanatical support enjoyed by some on the right wing(Pajamas Media and the more fanatical of the Likud, that means you).
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I guess I've never searched for "how to make a suicide vest" on YouTube, so I have no basis for how much/little of this stuff was on their site.
You should actually try it. Right now, it gets 24 hits (without the quotes, which is how most people would type it). Go watch them all, and get back to us with how terrified you are.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
You got it wrong. It's "War on TERRA" meaning war against earth.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
YouTube is a private service but, increasingly, each such 'self-censorship' move seems much less a result of some private spontaneous policy than 'the reasonably safe' course of action under systematic and systemic bullying from state institutions, lobbies, and bad journalism.
Those to whose pressure Google is now bowing, like Joe Lieberman and his sponsors, are both willing and increasingly able to upgrade current censorship policies from bullying-induced 'self-regulation of the industry' into aggressive censorship legislation.
What censorship legislation?
"[T]he new YouTube guidelines includes bans on videos that incite others to commit violent acts.."
Well then, that should get rid of any vids advocating the continued U.S. presence in Iraq. Except it won't because that's not violence, that's liberation.
Remember, it's not fascism when we do it.
Why is Google helping to instrument the fascist state?
I mean, seriously, it helps to know your enemy.
The fact that this is being announced now means that they used to allow it and that is just fucking sad. I am dumping Google stock. This is certainly a sad excuse for a company. Bowing down to China and supporting (or used to support) terrorists? Nice. Fucking nice.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Lieberman is a piece of shit. Remember when he tried to ban violent video games. The guy has a history of bullshit behind his worthless carcass of an ass. Google & Youtube shouldn't do this.
Wooh-hoo ! Excellent flame sub-thread. You know, I heard there's lots of spare land in the USA, plenty enough for all the Zionists - give them another promised land.
The United States was wrong to refuse to accept the Jews when Hitler offered to send them all here instead of to the camps, and the United States was wrong to create Liberia, and the United States was wrong to support the creation of Israel. All these acts were racist and fundamentally morally wrong, and have caused the deaths of untold numbers of innocent people.
Compare our more recent successes in resettling former Somalian slaves in the USA - not only have we improved the lives of these people, and enriched our own culture by bringing in more immigrants (immigrants are a vital part of our economy) we also have totally pissed off legions of racist morons who were already moaning and crying about the wetbacks from Mexico. Triple goodness!!
As far as I'm concerned, the Palestinians can all come over here. There are Egyptians and Palestinians already living in my area and I have no problems with them. Resettling all the Palestinians here would probably cost a lot less than conquering Iraq and failing to hold Afghanistan, although I guess that horse has already left the barn.
so this means the end of Earth First! worm composting training videos?
This is not a free speech issue. It would be one thing if the US government was forcing Youtube to suppress Islamic jihad training videos, but that is not the case.
The point is, Youtube (or Google) has decided that these extremely distasteful things are not worthy of their efforts to broadcast. Here we have a company ($$$omgevil$$$) deciding to do something that is actually moral...the kind of thing we wish Microsoft or Apple would do.
I applaud Youtube for not displaying these things. I fully support in the name of free speech if someone else wants to, but just because you can, doesn't mean it's morally responsible.
I agree with your characterizaion of the Arabs' poor treatment of the Palestinians, but when you then label Israel "a loyal US Ally/Satellite" I have to wonder if you know about the Israeli spies who've been stealing political, economic and military secrets from the US for decades now.
And frankly, I wish they didn't "advance[ the] US Agenda in the mideast" since access to cheap oil stagnated our culture and technology for 30 years.
I mean, you could argue that Terrorists shouldn't win Darwin awards because they kill other people when they explode. But if it's just a *training* video, they obviously didn't kill the camera man because someone had to upload the video.
Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with Terrorists upload videos of one of them blowing themselves up. Just not ones where they used decent special effects to render 72 virgins showing up afterwards - 'cause that's just dishonest man. It was only practice! You don't get the virgins if you're just practicing.
I'm sure the government thinks he's an extremist -- will Google?
They might. It's their site - they can host whatever they want. If YouTube sucks we'll move on to the next one.
If the government is forcing Google to censor stuff, well then we've got a problem.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I'm sick and tired of people abusing the web to spread their sick little excuses for inciting violence.
There is absolutely no excuse for this sort of thing, from any group!
His stance on censorship issues tends to put off a large number of left wing people who would otherwise like him. it is a big issue to some of us.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
I disagree with him on such issues as well, but at least recognize that the far left is as into telling people how to run their lives as the far right! :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Some are, some aren't. Leiberman hardly qualifies as far left. My issue with this is not his personal objection to such videos, nor is it with youtube removing them. My objection comes from him using his position as a public servant to subvert a basic ideal of this country.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that he was far left! He's pretty centrist on most issues. I was just pointing out the absurdity of pointing to someone as "far right" just because he is for censorship when this tends to be a characteristic of the "far left" as well. It can, as Lieberman shows, also be a characteristic of someone who in general is in the middle. :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
This is where I tend to disagree. I have found that most people at either end of the political spectrum. The people out at the far edges tend to agree that censorship is pretty much intolerable. It is usually in the cushy middle ground of compromise that I see a big push for such measures.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
I do not believe Lieberman, McCain, Cheney or any of Bush's henchmen want us to be safe. They want us to be scared. Lieberman is wrong to use his status as a Senator to influence YouTube, but I don't believe he made a mistake. I believe he's a fascist.
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
I dunno about that... book burnings seem to happen from the right wingers, and banned books in the libraries seem to come from the left wingers. Both tend to "think of the children" a little too often :) I'd say people with the censorship bug are pretty common right down the line.
I had a poly sci professor who liked to say that left and right actually made a circle and the far-left and far-right folks wrapped around and met eventually... I think he might have been on to something!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
You see i tend to find that the people at the extremes politically tend to be pretty anti-censorship, if only to protect their own fringe views. The center on the other hand seems to fall prey to many of the worst vices of either end by trying to please everyone.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
Probably some truth to that :)
Now that you've made me actually think about it... I think that the people willing to censor are the ones in power. Think about it, it's always the one's in government trying to protect their position. It makes little sense to push for censorship if you are struggling to get power. So we have examples of extremists in power enacting censorship, but most of the time in a democracy centrists are in power and so they are the ones pushing for censorship.
Whaddaya think? :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It fits well with what I have seen.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012