Slashdot Mirror


Federal Officials and YouTube Nearing a Deal

GovTechGuy writes "The federal government is on the verge of reaching an agreement with YouTube that would allow agencies to make official use of the popular video-sharing service. A coalition of federal agencies led by the General Service Administration's Office of Citizen Services has been negotiating with Google, YouTube's parent company, since summer 2008 on new terms that would allow agencies to establish their own channels on the site. Agencies have not been [allowed] to post videos to YouTube (although many already have) because under the current terms of service, people who post content are subject to their state's libel laws. Federal agencies must adhere to federal law. On Tuesday, government officials said the negotiations were 'very close' to being completed."

20 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. Oh joy by rockNme2349 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait, you mean it will be like C-Span, but whenever i want? I don't know if youtube has the bandwidth.

    --
    Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    1. Re:Oh joy by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wait, you mean it will be like C-Span, but whenever i want?

      I don't know if youtube has the bandwidth.

      Like C-Span, but with people linking directly to the good bits.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:Oh joy by rockNme2349 · · Score: 2, Funny

      the good bits.

      Think about what you just said.... Let it sink in.... Apology accepted.

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    3. Re:Oh joy by nsolon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wait, you mean it will be like C-Span, but whenever i want? I don't know if youtube has the bandwidth.

      Believe it or not, that site already exists. http://cspanjunkie.org/

  2. I'm surprised they just didn't post from Cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The United States could just have its government employees post videos from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Solves the having to adhere to State's laws moot. And solves the problem of having to adhere to Federal law to boot.

  3. Not Engrish by fm6 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Agencies have not been able to post videos to YouTube (although many already have) because, under the current terms of service, people who post content is subject to their state's liable laws.

    I notice this story has already been tagged "Engrish". But the submitter's issue is not so much poor ESL (I think he might even be a native speaker!) as poor self expression. They can't but they already have? What do the "liable laws" have to do with this?

    You know, since the editors never do any actual editing, maybe it's time to call them something else.

    1. Re:Not Engrish by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know, since the editors never do any actual editing, maybe it's time to call them something else.

      I already do. However, it's not polite so I won't repeat it here. ;)

  4. Having had read this through by enoz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Agencies have not been able to post videos to YouTube (although many already have)

    So the many agencies that have posted videos when they have not been able to post videos have ignored that they cannot post videos or have bypassed the problem that was having them unable to post videos?

  5. In bed with Google by basementman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does the federal government need an official video channel anyway? They should post their public domain videos on their own site and allow others to distribute them to youtube, liveleak, hulu etc. Giving youtube favoritism just adds to Google's ever growing monopoly, even if they generally act ethically. The idea of having a incredibly powerful company like google, essentially get humped by the federal government worries me.

    1. Re:In bed with Google by British · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think I might know why: They(99% of the time) can handle the bandwidth. Any link aggregator site like fark, or even here posts a video, the website can't handle it after an hour. YouTube always rises to the video sharing occasion. YouTube now becomes a really big TV channel with lots of programs.

    2. Re:In bed with Google by rts008 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why does the federal government need an official video channel anyway?

      How else do you suggest they set up and start the 'Ministry of Truth'?

      Just keep your eye on how comments and replies are handled on that channel...

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    3. Re:In bed with Google by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 3, Funny

      If the comments are anything like what is currently on YouTube, I very much hope they nuke those comments from orbit.

  6. Comments/Ratings policy, propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Office of National Drug Control Policy (the "this is your brain on drugs" people) have been known to post their propaganda ads on YouTube. Once they discovered that the user ratings on it and user comments were not to their liking, they disabled ratings and comments. First Amendment, anyone?

    If the Federal agencies post the public's content on YouTube, Google needs to require public comments and ratings, for the sake of the public interest and the free flow of information. Wherever the Feds go, the public goes there with them. This is the only American thing to do.

    1. Re:Comments/Ratings policy, propaganda by ForrestFire439 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah right. It's vital to the well-being of our democracy that youtube viewers can barrage every video with "u suck cock lol" and "dude like pot iz ttly awesome. 420 MAN!"

      --
      "Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure." --Robert Heinlien
    2. Re:Comments/Ratings policy, propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First Amendment, anyone?

      Nope. You're proposing a false dichotomy. US citizens are free (at least, still free) to criticize the government's videos elsewhere. However, I do agree with your comment's point, just not the argument it uses as support.

    3. Re:Comments/Ratings policy, propaganda by htnmmo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are idiots that actually care to read the Youtube comments besides the idiots that reply to them?

  7. Be ready for Microsoft's complaint by bogaboga · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And I will support Microsoft in its complaint if it ever materializes. Why should my tax dollars be used to purposefully enrich a private corporation? Microsoft no longer gets the limelight. Was there any bidding done in order to select YouTube? What's wrong with our public officials? I wonder what Steve Ballmer is thinking right now.

    1. Re:Be ready for Microsoft's complaint by Plutonite · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By that logic, any company that wins a government contract (e.g Lockheed Martin) can be sued by another potential contractor (e.g Northrup Grumman). Clearly the government can enrich any private corporation in exchange for services and products, based on its needs, yes? One would be more worried about the government enriching failed CEO's with multi-million dollar goodbye packages out of honest taxpayer money, but that's another story.

      I hope Google says no, or at least manages this wisely. If the government invades the "promoted content" section with propaganda, especially to US-based IPs, it will not be a good thing.

    2. Re:Be ready for Microsoft's complaint by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Funny

      And I will support Microsoft in its complaint if it ever materializes. Why should my tax dollars be used to purposefully enrich a private corporation?

      In case you haven't noticed - the government buys goods and services from private corporations on a daily basis.

    3. Re:Be ready for Microsoft's complaint by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How much does it cost? Currently you can't grab the videos from youtube and do anything with them without violating the youtube TOS. So the videos are effectivly theirs and not the publics unless your wanting to face felony computer trespass charges like the chick who caused the girl to commit suicide.

      So how much does it cost to produce videos of government and give them away to a company that supported the current administration's election so that company can end up with exclusive control over them and serve all the ads they want? I would say the cost of production at least. And I would say the cost of freedom when the government is allowed to do this without an open bidding process or authorization by congress to give public domain works to a company that backed the president during his bid for election.

      Is this the hope and change we can believe in? Or is it yet another example of politics as usual being blinded by technology?