Slashdot Mirror


White House Ditches YouTube

An anonymous reader writes to tell us that in an apparent response to privacy complaints, the White House has quietly moved off of YouTube as a method for serving the President's weekly video address. Choosing instead to use a Flash-based solution and Akamai's content delivery network, this comes just days after YouTube began to roll out their own new policies regarding privacy of visitors.

18 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. Wise choice by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wise choice.

    I never understood why they would choose YouTube over other Internet "channels". It is not exactly a "neutral choice".

    If the president would like to speak to the American people, why not choose something not affiliated with any company.

    But, as a non-American, what do I know.

    1. Re:Wise choice by PetriBORG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe so, but do if you are hoping to get young people - people who wouldn't otherwise notice you - to notice you, then maybe you would post it to some place they go right? I'm wondering why they can't just post them to multiple places - now that seems a more reasonable question to me.

      --
      Pete/Petri "damn, my chainsaw is clogged with 1's and 0's again." --clyde
    2. Re:Wise choice by Idiomatick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Saving them possible thousands of dollars! While alienating the world outside the US even further. Brilliant.

    3. Re:Wise choice by Hatta · · Score: 4, Informative

      It still depends on Flash as well.

      If you actually visit the site you'll see an HTTP link to an MP4 of the video. So they did this right.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Wise choice by Deag · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The BBC streams some things - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/also_in_the_news/7919495.stm

      I also think there is a big difference between a television station broadcasting something and what amounts to a press release.

    5. Re:Wise choice by Chabo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh yes, and I'd also like to see a .torrent on the site, but I know that'll never happen.

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    6. Re:Wise choice by Dayze!Confused · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...I just hope they block overseas views so our taxes don't pay for that bandwidth. Just like the the BBC does with it's feeds.

      I am an American citizen but I live overseas, I wouldn't like having it blocked, I try to stay up to date on things happening in the US and I still have to pay US taxes on all of my income.

      --
      "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
    7. Re:Wise choice by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I tend to agree. The thing is that the government doesn't pay for the broadcast of the press release.
      I would have no problem with the BBC streaming the addresses themselves. Or CBS, NBC, Hulu, PBS, NPR, or any other news service.
      Just for the US me as a tax payer to pay for it. As I said at the start I so don't have a problem with it being on YouTube at all. But this will probably end up costing millions all over a cookie.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:Wise choice by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I never understood why they would choose YouTube over other Internet "channels". It is not exactly a "neutral choice".

      Because the White House (from Mr. I-Want-My-Blackberry on down) is now staffed by your basic Web 2.0 geeks who are used to doing everything with certain widely used platforms: YouTube, FaceBook, Blackberry, etc. They're having a hard time adapting to life in a big organization with an established federal IT infrastructure that doesn't know how to support their Macs, is suspicious of any application that hasn't been vetted by their bureaucracy, and is more about security than about communication. It's why whitehouse.gov is still such a mess: the people who are running it are just now learning that there's more to creating a government web site than opening a Blogster account.

      I think this Clash of Civilizations, snafus and all, is actually a healthy thing. It will force Obama's tech geeks to think things through and understand the real-world perils of the technology they love so much. And it will force the IT people to adapt the federal infrastructure to a world where online communication has become a central way of getting things done.

    9. Re:Wise choice by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

      But this will probably end up costing millions all over a cookie.

            And it's not even chocolate chip.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:Wise choice by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, we didn't have to pay for the broadcast of the radio address at all; there are many outlets that carry it, even on TV.

      Now, if you want it available on-demand, when you want it, that will cost you. Either in tax dollars, so we can accomodate an on-demand generation, or in privacy when you let them use something commercial and sponsored by ads.

      I vote for the tax dollars. My privacy is valuable. The Administration got this one right.

      YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, et al are not free, not even as in beer. They cost more than we dare think. Like when your credentials get cracked and you have to change passwords all over...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    11. Re:Wise choice by recharged95 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Think outside the box,

      Gov't is good at exploitation:

      .

      1. Use youtube to aggregate and host videos initially. Exploit Youtube's excellent distribution model for short term content.

      2. After a month, back them up on your own storage server (i.e. US library of Congress). Exploit your excellent archival infrastructure. Convert from flash to something like Mpeg-4 too. That will built up the LoC's site and pump more cash/need/better use cases into it.

      3. profit! well maybe not as gov't is not suppose to profit remember!

      .

      .

      . Done and thank you too.

    12. Re:Wise choice by easyTree · · Score: 5, Funny

      Perhaps you've not heard, p2p is illegal, even if the content holder uploads the torrent themselves...

    13. Re:Wise choice by fczuardi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nice so it can be re posted on YouTube with little effort. Still think using a free service that everybody and their dog uses makes a lot more sense than paying for it.

      Yes it Can... be reposted to Youtube or Vimeo, or Archive.org or Blip.tv or even your preferred P2P network, you can even host it yourself because as far as I know this videos are all public domain.

      But you don't need to re-post them to Youtube and Vimeo at least, because whitehouse folks already do that for you:

      They only stopped embedding youtube videos on the whitehouse gov site (maybe to stop advertising google's service for free on a tax-payer funded website, although the link to Vimeo is still there), but they are still publishing copies of the weekly videos on youtube and other free services that everybody and their dog uses...

  2. What's the Secret Service's problem! by Samschnooks · · Score: 5, Funny

    That is, the site would be free to keep logs on the videos viewed by visitors to its own site as well as those embedded on blogs, but it would opt to immediately forget all identifying information associated with requests from government sites.

    First I watched some hairy milf porn, then some stuff on how ot win on "Call of Duty", then I watched some heavy metal and cop killing rap music videos, a Joel Osteen sermon, then I watched this guy with an Uzi with a silencer knock off a bunch of targets (way cool!), and then I watched Obama's weekly address.

    A few hours later, this black helicopter lands in my front yard and a bunch of guys kick my door down! I mean, WTF!?!

  3. Re: by Captain+Spam · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, but they want something they can use for THIS presidential term.

    Thank you! Thank you! I'm here all week! Try the veal!

    --
    Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
  4. Re:Distribute a File? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 4, Informative

    They include an MP4 and text so you don't even need a video player to know what was said.

  5. Akamai, Google and privacy by OldakQuill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Akamai is an odd choice of platform if The White House is concerned about privacy. Akamai serve about 20% of the world's Internet traffic and function as a "content delivery platform" for many big-name websites. Most of the work they do is in caching images and interactive media, as well as serving ads for many websites to improve loading speed. They are like Google in many ways, in that they have a massively distributed server network that spans 70 countries and are ingrained in many peoples' browsing experience.

    One of the things they are best known for is Internet usage statistics. They provide good indicators of general Internet use and use of specific services.

    Also like Google, they track users using various means, and use the details to profit. Most importantly, they use this information for advert targeting.

    There are two dissimilarities between Google and Akamai (ignoring the obvious dissimilarity of the two companies' models): Akamai have spent most of their life trying to find ways to make a profit and Akamai receive a lot less public scrutiny because their services are transparent to the end-user.

    If YouTube was abandoned due to Google's privacy practices, privacy advocates should be as concerned about the privacy practices of Akamai. Indeed, the extent to which Akamai tracks users needs to be investigated and exposed for the sake of public scrutiny.