Viacom's Messy Relationship With YouTube and The Rise of Stephen Colbert

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Viacom's Messy Relationship With YouTube and The Rise of Stephen Colbert

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday December 21, 2014 @12:40PM from the birth-of-the-nation dept.

Presto Vivace writes with this story about how Stephen Colbert became a YouTube Megastar. "Clips from The Colbert Report soon became a staple at YouTube, a startup that was making it easier for anyone and everyone to upload and watch home movies, video blogs, and technically-illicit-but-increasingly-vanilla clips of TV shows from the day before. And Colbert’s show was about to find itself at the center of a conflict between entertainment media and the web over online video that’s shaped the last decade. In fact, The Colbert Report has been defined as much by this back-and-forth between Hollywood and the web as by the cable news pundits it satirizes....A year after The Colbert Report premiere, Google acquired YouTube for $1.65 billion in stock. Five months later, Viacom sued YouTube and Google for copyright infringement, asking for $1 billion in damages. The value of these videos and their audiences were clear. The Colbert Report and “Stephen Colbert” are mentioned three times in Viacom’s complaint against YouTube, as much or more than any other show or artist."

78 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Scam by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 12:46 · Score: -1

But what about all of those scam videos by Alex Jones, etc.? Additionally, Japan was critical in this endeavor.
Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 12:54 · Score: 1

Viacom has Google running scared.
1. Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  Viacom has Google running scared.
  People keep posting video content of "banned" content on a regular basis.
2. Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by SternisheFan · 2014-12-21 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  Call me an old neckbeard, but all this copyright shit has really gotten f**kin' tiresome. Figure it out already!!! How hard can it be??
3. Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-12-21 13:10 · Score: 2
  
  Yep, you can't capture a cable network and upload it to YouTube without permission. It took a lot of work to devise that scheme, and throws the concept of designing your own DVR out the window.
4. Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 13:24 · Score: 0
  
  Viacom has Google running scared.
  Dumbass didn't read article because dumbass can't read.
5. Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by rudy_wayne · 2014-12-21 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  Viacom has Google running scared.
  People keep posting video content of "banned" content on a regular basis.
  Google keeps taking down content that should be allowed.
6. Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-12-21 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  Viacom led the YouTube lawsuit era, but ABC/Disney, NBC/Comcast and Fox/News Corp. followed behind. Content owners want you to watch on cable TV, not YouTube.
7. Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by rudy_wayne · 2014-12-21 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  Content owners want you to watch on cable TV, not YouTube.
  Why? They still get paid regardless.
  Viacom and the other "content owners" collect billions of dollars a year from all the cable/satellite companies, just for the right to carry their programming. If I never watch a single minute of TV, Viacom and all the others still get paid.
8. Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  It would be an easy problem to solve, if there weren't so many powerful people so keen on keeping it hard.
  Similarly, in a world where one country can produce more than enough food to feed the entire planet, on an ongoing basis, you'd think the problem of world hunger would be easy to solve.
  In a world where the overwhelming majority of the populace would prefer to feel safe every night when they go to sleep, you'd think the problem of war would be easy to solve.
  We make these problems hard, because are petty assholes.
9. Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  1) Content owners don't make a penny unless they claim the video, and that claim is upheld.
  2) Content owners don't control the advertising that YouTube runs, if any at all.
  3) Cable/Satellite negotiates bulk-rate deals that have nothing to do with particular content. They negotiate over rights to groups of entire channels, not just particular shows or clips.
  4) Viacom doesn't view what they get paid as "making" money. They view the perceived loss of control over viewing as "losing" money. A subtle but very important difference.
  5) The amounts that content producers make from advertising is actually pretty small, so any further losses are viewed as intolerable.
10. Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 15:24 · Score: 0
  
  Viacom 64 billion Google 364 billion
  I'm sure Google is terrified in this great nation where the richest always wins.
  Captcha excess
  Google has that in spades.
11. Re: Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 17:18 · Score: 0
  
  They already figured it out. Youtube can't have anything copyrighted on it, but are able to get away with software detection as their reasonable effort. Stuff gets posted, taken down, posted, taken down, etc.
12. Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by TheRaven64 · 2014-12-21 21:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It is hard. Producing a new creative work, be it a film, piece of software, book, or whatever, is hard and often expensive. Copying a creative work is cheap to the point that it's barely worth measuring the cost. Lots of influential companies have business models that revolve around doing the difficult thing for free and then charging for the easy thing to make up for it. They're eventually going to be displaced by companies that realise that it makes more sense to charge for the difficult thing - we're seeing this in software already, with open source companies giving away code that's already written for free and charging for writing new features or customisation (or, in some cases, entirely new programs).
  In 100 years, people are going to look back on DRM and restrictive copyright in much the same way that we look back at the laws that required motor cars to have someone walk in front of them with a red flag. Regulations that can't possibly work in the long term, designed to prop up an industry that's suddenly found itself obsoleted by new technology.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
13. Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by Jack+Griffin · 2014-12-21 21:46 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The root cause of all this is that for a short period in history, the creative arts had a monopoly on distribution, so got to charge whatever they liked for their product, and hence vastly overvalued their self worth. Now the balance is swinging back they can't accept they shouldn't be paid millions of dollars for simply telling a story or singing a song. Tough shit, we shouldn't be propping up their outdated business model with legislation. Let them die and a new generation of 21st century entertainers take their place.
14. Re: Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 22:53 · Score: 0
  
  It might be hard and expensive but that does not make it valuable, it's got to be desirable as well at the cost the suppliers are willing to produce it. I still think our society, due to continued interventions extending copyrights is causing the over production of the "goods." The fact is we have seen some struggle on the periphery of the recording industry, and the main players have not been able to push prices up with inflation. CD, DVD, streaming have all made media cheaper. The next wave of increasing profits for them will be to scale back on content, get more folks watching the same movie or playing the same record.
15. Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by MachineShedFred · 2014-12-22 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  and throws the concept of designing your own DVR out the window.
  Tell that to the tiny PC I have hooked up to my TV that is better than any DVR equipment I've ever received from a cable or satellite provider, and has an equipment cost of $6/month for the CableCARD.
  There are several spin-your-own-DVR solutions out there, you just have to play the game. No, you can't use YouTube as your DVR; and that's not "designing your own DVR" anyway.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
16. Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by MachineShedFred · 2014-12-22 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  They make more money by having your eyeballs on their channel, in the form of ratings-metered advertising.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
17. Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  It would be an easy problem to solve, if there weren't so many powerful people so keen on keeping it hard.
  Similarly, in a world where one country can produce more than enough food to feed the entire planet, on an ongoing basis, you'd think the problem of world hunger would be easy to solve.
  The problem is that some parts of the world don't produce anything of value. They then have no ability to trade for the things they can't produce themselves and if that happens to be food they starve. The compounding issue is that not much of the world lacks the ability to produce food at all, but much of the world lacks the ability to produce food in sufficient quantities to exceed unchecked population growth, without fairly advanced technology.
  The solution to starvation is for industry to exploit the cheap labor of the starving populations (it' their one valuble resource). This gets them the ability to trade labor for food, and exposes them to superior technology at the expense of the foreign industries who are hiring them to run their factories. In time they will have gained the techology they need to farm efficiently, to curb their population growth, and to put their capital assets to work for themselves instead of for the foreign companies.
  The trouble is that doesn't fly with the "bleeding hearts" who'd rather give away food and technology, while ignoring that it doesn't actually solve the problem because the people lack the education to exploit the technology, and population growth will knock out any charity food handouts (more children growing up instead of starving means more mouthes to feed in the next genration).
18. Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-25 15:53 · Score: 0
  
  you clearly know little about the actual inner workings of making a film or a song or the costs involved.
  look at your typical movie: even the simple ones have hundreds of people involved for months at a time. if its a summer blockbuster its a thousand (or more) people, and the tme frame can stretch to a year or more. all those people need paid. not all of them will work continuously on that one film, but many of them will. some of the jobs will be minimum wage, and some will be 100k+ (wont even mention the high profile actors and directors). it adds up, from the foley artist, to the best grip, to the composer, to the digital animator. there's preproduction, trying to get a workable script and lining up actors to commit to a project, which means they cant accept other projects which is a risk for them. there's post production, editing it all together, reshoots, etc. voiceover work for certain releases that will be redubbed. marketing and distribution, convincing the public to see it and convicning theaters that the public will see it, getting the theater franchises to buy showing rights.
  all of this costs money. making a movie for less than 10, 20 million is nearly impossible unless you're only hitting the arthouses and dont have any sort of star power. but those projects arent going to make much money either. to make a wide release film for less than that that means paying everyone involved starving wages.
  as i said, you are totally clueless about the inner workings of production.
  and they may bitch and moan, but they are in no danger of going away.
  the industry is strong, and still making money.
19. Re:Can't find anything on Youtube anymore by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-12-26 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  TV ads are usually worth more per viewer than YouTube ads, because they get a large number of people to react at the same time, even in the age of TiVo people are still watching live streams for things like sports, and even an "I Love Lucy" effect (you know, jokes like water pressure changes based on Lucy's commercial timing) on popular shows.
  
  Viacom and the other "content owners" collect billions of dollars a year from all the cable/satellite companies, just for the right to carry their programming. If I never watch a single minute of TV, Viacom and all the others still get paid.
  Viacom doesn't get paid for what didn't work like Nick GaS (Games and Sports channel) or CBS Eye on People (a CBS News rerun channel). Why not? Because the channels no longer exist since nobody was watching.
CBS doesn't own Colbert by The+New+Guy+2.0 · 2014-12-21 13:05 · Score: 1, Informative

Steven Colbert doesn't work for CBS, his show is sold to Comedy Central and his future project is sold to CBS.
The Daily Show and Colbert report are part of Comedy Partners Inc., which was first the joint venture name for Viacom and AOL Time Warner when they shared the Comedy Central network, but is now the company headed by Jon Stewart that supplies the programs to Comedy Central.
Colbert is moving to replace David Letterman on Late Show, but that project is owned by Worldwide Pants which has run Late Night/Late Show since the beginning. CBS buys the right to broadcast it.
1. Re:CBS doesn't own Colbert by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 13:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  WRONG WRONG WRONG!! And it gets modded up!!
  "CBS will own and produce the new show, with Letterman's Worldwide Pants no longer having a role in the series after the "Colbert Report" host takes over."
  http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/late-show-stephen-colbert-perfect-695173
2. Re:CBS doesn't own Colbert by rudy_wayne · 2014-12-21 14:18 · Score: 0
  
  Worldwide Pants is the production company owned by David Letterman. Looks like he won't be getting a cut of the new Colbert Show. But that's OK. Worldwide Pants owns Everybody Loves Raymond, which is still in syndication and has made a few gazillion dollars.. When Letterman retires next year I'm pretty sure he won't have to get a job as a Wal-Mart greeter to make ends meet.
3. Re:CBS doesn't own Colbert by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 16:14 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Dude, chill. Believe it or not, you're not the first person to find something wrong on the internet.
4. Re:CBS doesn't own Colbert by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 16:36 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Believe it or not, you're not the first person to find something wrong on the internet.
  But he is the last. After this, no more mistakes.
5. Re:CBS doesn't own Colbert by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 16:38 · Score: -1
  
  But some of us are tired of the Repubicans constantly lying in order to harm minorities and the poor. In this case, he lies to protect the Republican Colbert. That man grew-up in South Carolina so you know he is a racist. What that moron did should be punishable by time in prison, but instead we have racists like you defending the lies that harm us.
6. Re:CBS doesn't own Colbert by dean.cubed9947 · 2014-12-21 16:45 · Score: 2
  
  You just started a sentence with the word 'but'. Reset the timer!
7. Re:CBS doesn't own Colbert by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 22:26 · Score: 0
  
  WTF did I just read?
8. Re:CBS doesn't own Colbert by Paradise+Pete · 2014-12-22 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  I did say "after this." However (heh), as you have now made a more recent mistake, now we do have to reset the timer....
9. Re:CBS doesn't own Colbert by disambiguated · 2014-12-22 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  Probably Poe's Law, but you can never be sure.
  
  Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.
I think it is useful to document the history by Presto+Vivace · 2014-12-21 13:25 · Score: 2

From the article:

Viacom’s claim wasn’t that YouTube was just turning a blind eye to users infringing copyright—it was that YouTube was offering filtering technology to its media partners that it wasn’t making available to companies who weren’t playing ball.
Lost His Balls by Kunedog · 2014-12-21 13:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Colbert sacrificed his integrity and actually did fluff piece on Anita Sarkeesian. Comments are disabled on the interview vid; has that ever happened to any other Colbert vid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
1. Re:Lost His Balls by retchdog · 2014-12-21 13:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  yeah, Viacom probably didn't want to deal with subpoenas and a federal investigation from the comments of people like you.
  pretty wise of them, really.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
2. Re:Lost His Balls by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 14:05 · Score: -1
  
  yeah, Viacom probably didn't want to deal with subpoenas and a federal investigation from the comments of people like you.
  pretty wise of them, really.
  what, are we north korea now?
3. Re:Lost His Balls by jo_ham · 2014-12-21 14:21 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  It is amazing how threatened you young boys are by that woman. I guess it shows just how effective she is at what she does.
4. Re:Lost His Balls by theskipper · 2014-12-21 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  Never heard of this Anita person before, but after watching the interview it looked to me like just a standard/funny Colbert interview. Shrug.
  Btw, your youtube link was wrong. Here's the correct one:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
5. Re:Lost His Balls by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 16:11 · Score: -1
  
  Listen and believe.
  These three words are why almost everything SJWs publish is accompanied by censorship. They know their arguments are bullshit, so they label anyone who points out their fallacies as racist/misogynistic/etc and shut down any discussion.
6. Re:Lost His Balls by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  What do you do when you have no leg to stand on? Ad hominem attacks!
  "young boys, neckbeards, misogynists, etc"
7. Re:Lost His Balls by epyT-R · 2014-12-21 19:29 · Score: 0
  
  It's amazing how you boys are so willing to white knight for lying wenches.
8. Re:Lost His Balls by epyT-R · 2014-12-21 19:42 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  So what if the FBI is investigating. Why do you expect your assumptions to coincide with their conclusions? Any large following will have a few crackpots making threats. Feminists do it too (the scum manifesto comes to mind, all the way to the amanda marcott types). I suppose you are just as eager for their crackpots to go to jail right? Somehow, I doubt it.
  The last thing we should be doing is folding to these professional victims. Colbert (or his boss) was a coward. Out of all the flack comedy central gets for shows like southpark, it's anita sarkeesian's pity party that makes them fold? Something doesn't add up.
9. Re:Lost His Balls by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 19:50 · Score: 0
  
  It's terrible the way oppressive totalitarian regimes such as DPRK censor your right to angrily state your intention to sexually violate or kill, or both, an individual, the utter bastards.
  CAPTCHA: organist, that's a good euthemism for gamergaters, i suppose.
10. Re:Lost His Balls by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 22:08 · Score: 0
  
  You and Kunedog are hilarious. You pop up on every reference on Slashdot to Gamergate like clockwork, and if you don't see one, you make one so we can all be blessed by your wisdom about the SJW conspiracy.
  If you're asking what doesn't add up, I'll see if I can lead your thinking in the right direction. Let us set up a binary choice: a woman mentions Gamergate. The outcomes we have witnessed are:
  1) A woman mentions GG in a positive light. Gamergate showers her with affection and gives her creepy nicknames. For reference: Christina H. Sommers, or as GG calls her, "Based Mom". Also see Karen Straughan ("Based Stepmom").
  2) A woman mentions GG in a negative light. Anonymous trolls who are totally not GG threaten to kill her and her family. For bonus points, they will occasionally wait until a treasured pet is dying to they can mock her for that too, because basic human decency is for social justice warriors and beta males! For reference: any one of the women who've had the gall to point out harrassment and sexism. (You can score 100% on this challenge if it's a trans woman and you repeatedly refer to them as a man, because ethics.)
  So maybe, just maybe, the comments are disabled because of option 2?
  Can I therefore offer your advice - if you really have an issue with these women and think they are professional victims, the easiest solution would be to stop fucking victimising them. Before the inevitable "They're the ones who are inserting themselves into our culture!", ask yourself who started this comment thread? Look at all the other comment threads about Anita. Who started those? It's like sitting a ravenous dog in front of a pile of biscuits and telling them not to touch them.
11. Re:Lost His Balls by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 22:27 · Score: 0
  
  Never heard of this Anita person before, but after watching the interview it looked to me like just a standard/funny Colbert interview. Shrug.
  Btw, your youtube link was wrong. Here's the correct one:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  I had heard about here before, and knew about the controversy, still agree with you -- to me it was just a regular Colbert interview, nothing special about it either way.
12. Re:Lost His Balls by camg188 · 2014-12-21 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  Colbert lost his integrity
  The Colbert Report is a fictional comedy show. I hope you are refering to his professional integrity to deliver laughs, not news.
13. Re:Lost His Balls by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 23:54 · Score: 0
  
  Quick question... What kind of biscuits? If they are the cheddar ones from Red Lobster I think you wouldn't even need a ravenous anything to not eat every single one.
14. Re:Lost His Balls by drinkypoo · 2014-12-21 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  Quick question... What kind of biscuits? If they are the cheddar ones from Red Lobster I think you wouldn't even need a ravenous anything to not eat every single one.
  Fuck, put some shredded cheese and some old bay into some bisquick already, what year is it?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
15. Re:Lost His Balls by mvdwege · 2014-12-22 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  Oh my. People this stupid really exist.
  Hey kiddo, hate to burst your bubble, but Colbert was never on your side. I'll spell it out for you: he does a parody of a White Conservative Man.
  And if this kind of rampant stupidity is a sample of the kind of comments that video was expected to attract, disabling comments seems eminently reasonable to me.
  
  --
  "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
16. Re:Lost His Balls by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 00:14 · Score: 0
  
  But it's not "fictional". It's satire: it lampoons the right wing by extending their claims and beliefs, fairly consistently, until they're completely ridiculous.
  Mind you, it's not very *good* satire. The Daily Show is *much*, *much* funnier, partly because I have to deal with people who sound like Colbert everyday and take themselves quite seriously, so it grates. I've even heard such pinheads *literally quoting the Colbert report* in support of their lunacies, though I'm not sure they realized where the quote came from.
17. Re:Lost His Balls by MachineShedFred · 2014-12-22 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  More than that, his "Steven Colbert" act (that's what it is - an act) is just being a contrarian. He'll be the first to say that his entire interviewing style is to be disinterested in whoever it is that is there, and to just argue with them with the absolute most ridiculous contrary statements he can think of. He, in fact, tells his guests this before any cameras are turned on in order to let them have some fun with it too - he genuinely wants his guests to have a great time when they appear, and thus warns them that this is how the act goes.
  That show was never meant to have "integrity" of any sort, and the GP is an idiot.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
18. Re:Lost His Balls by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  > stop fucking victimising them
  You cannot stop victimizing SJWs. They will find offense anywhere because that's how they make a living. It's their job. Every time they cry harassment their patreon donations soar. They'll twist anything into racism, sexism, oppression and harassment. They are masters of raising the goal post.
  Ironically they complain about harassment and at the same time harass people who don't agree with them off twitter, wikipedia, send them threatening objects (knives, dead animals) or just get them fired.
  Yes, these are the SJWs, not GG. They are a toxic community that projects their hatred for everyone who doesn't think their way on everyone else. They're like the rabid anti-gay conservatives who get caught in airport toilets.
19. Re:Lost His Balls by Hillgiant · 2014-12-22 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly this is about ethics in gaming journalism; not about threats of extreme violence to silence dissent*.
  *Even if it is composed entirely of such threats. Modern political debate. So meta.
  
  --
  -
20. Re:Lost His Balls by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  The above comment is nonsense - you can't blame "SJWs" for doing anything, as it's a term that you made up. When you pick and choose who gets labelled with it, of course you can lump in trolls and feminists even though they have no relationship to each other that anybody else would care to see.
  We can all say that GG supporters harrass and send threats because they self-identify, and there's at least one link elsewhere in this conversation that clearly shows someone sending death threats in the name of Gamergate. That makes it your own responsibility.
21. Re:Lost His Balls by DrPizza · 2014-12-22 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck off, you stupid gator prick.
22. Re:Lost His Balls by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-25 15:57 · Score: 0
  
  this is how we know you dont actually watch.
  basically nothing he does can be considered "fluff".
  on his show he is in character all the time, and that includes coming at his guests the way any of the fox loonies would.
  your post is simply some more flamebait, trying to start yet another round of gamergate bullshit.
23. Re:Lost His Balls by jo_ham · 2015-01-03 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  It's amazing how you boys are so willing to white knight for lying wenches.
  Whether she lies or not (what lies exactly - or are you just talking about disagreeing with her stance or her talking points?), the response to her is not to threaten to rape her, or doxx her, or call anyone who does a piece that is not critical of her "sacrificing integrity".
  She has some extreme leaps of logic among some actual points, but the reaction to her has been nothing but immature whining and outright obscene and unacceptable behaviour towards her and anyone else who brings up the topic. You're essentially making her point for her better than she ever could. It's a self fulfilling prophecy at this point.
24. Re:Lost His Balls by jo_ham · 2015-01-03 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  What do you do when you have no leg to stand on? Ad hominem attacks!
  "young boys, neckbeards, misogynists, etc"
  How is it an ad hominem attack to call people who threaten to rape her to make her shut up, or call anyone who talks her about the media in anything but an oppressively critical light 'sacrificing integrity' anything but "immature young boys"? That's exactly what they are.
  Put it this way, if they don't want to be called misogynistic, immature boys who are whining like bratty children when someone they don't like says something they disagree with then they should probably stop acting like it.
wrong side by Kunedog · 2014-12-21 14:26 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Nice try, but it's clear from the interview which side Colbert was really afraid of upsetting.
1. Re:wrong side by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, damn right! If he'd been mean to Anita, she would have had to criticise him, which as we know is the worst infraction that any God-fearing white male could ever withstand from a woman. It's a good thing you're here to issue propaganda on behalf of a movement that is currently harrassing JIMMY FUCKING WALES for the crime of demanding impartiality on a Wikipedia article.
  You are rapidly running out of friends. May I suggest you would be better received on 8chan or your circle-jerk subreddit?
2. Re:wrong side by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 22:16 · Score: 0
  
  Nice try, but it's clear from the interview which side Colbert was really afraid of upsetting.
  That is your perspective, and not at all my impression of the interview. But, one question that puzzles me about the theory of him being afraid and men being oppressed: All the positions of power in the country has a strong majority of men: Law makers and politicians, law enforcement and judges, business leaders and rich people, media owners, etc. -- male majority all the way. I'm not saying that this is something that should be changed, I'm just stating a fact. And the theory is that these all have decided to oppress themselves?
3. Re:wrong side by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 23:11 · Score: 0
  
  'course we know if Sarkeesian were being criticised, it's just misogyny and men trying to shut women up, right?
  Because it's only right to criticise men, who all deserve it, right?
4. Re:wrong side by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 23:14 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, right.
  Those at the top are ALL WEALTHY CONNECTED FAMILIES.
  I'm no more in charge than I killed that black kid with the toy gun merely because I happen to be white.
  PS check the stats on male incarceration rates and punishments vs women found guilty of the same thing for an example of the persecution of unprivileged class males vs unprivileged class females.
5. Re:wrong side by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 00:39 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, right.
  Those at the top are ALL WEALTHY CONNECTED FAMILIES.
  I'm no more in charge than I killed that black kid with the toy gun merely because I happen to be white.
  PS check the stats on male incarceration rates and punishments vs women found guilty of the same thing for an example of the persecution of unprivileged class males vs unprivileged class females.
  That doesn't change the fact that if there is oppression of men it is being done by men, since we are in majority in all positions that can decide and enforce oppression.
6. Re:wrong side by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 00:41 · Score: 0
  
  I think someone is suffering from Two-Tone Perception Disorder - the inability to process the idea that it's okay to criticise something and still enjoy it, and also to appreciate that criticism of one thing is not criticism of all things forever.
  Have you watched a Sarkeesian video? Her work is very simple, and incredibly inoffensive. It's not even strong criticism - she goes out of her way to say that the tropes she highlights are lazy and can reinforce sexist ideals, not that the games or developers themselves are sexist. Think of it as someone just being disappointed that we haven't done better. However, some fairly vicious bigots have told you what she really thinks (because nothing says sexism like denying a woman her own opinion), and GG have lapped it up because they don't want anything to change, without really working out that this isn't a zero-sum game where CoD and Hitman cannot exist at the same time as Gone Home and Depression Quest.
  I've yet to see anyone in GamerGate succeed in criticising Sarkeesian's work in the literary sense. Anything that aspires to that not-so-lofty level is all ad hominem attacks, and cherry picking the single Hitman example I hear over and over to discredit the entire work. However, if you can point to well-constructed criticism of Anita Sarkeesian by a GGer, I'll be glad to have that discussion with you. Bear in mind that I have watched most of the work of people like Thunderf00t, MundaneMatt, Ralph and the regular responses from GG people, so you'll have to actually come up with something I haven't seen - those are not good examples of criticism, for reasons that many other people have explored at length and I seriously don't have the space to go into here.
  As it stands, as has been stated elsewhere, the fact that Anita Sarkeesian is being threatened at all shows gaming has a real problem. Whether these people are GG or not (and in at least some cases, they definitely are), this is a response to her criticising games, and it needs to stop, and people need to fucking grow up.
7. Re:wrong side by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  Bringing Wikipedia into this is a terrible idea because the article about Gamergate is one of the most biased and heavily brigaded articles by SJWs out there. It's the posterchild for why Wikipedia is an utterly unreliable source of information and why the whole "everyone can edit" slogan is a lie. Anti-Gamergate editors and admins basically locked the article down and bullied anyone with a dissenting opinion out.
  That article was also only the tip of the iceberg. Editors like ryulong deliberately whitewhash, censor and manipulate articles to further their agenda and they have enough clout among editors and admins to get away with it.
  There is no impartiality on Wikipedia when agenda driven brigades (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism) get to dictate articles with impunity.
8. Re:wrong side by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  It seems like all you actually need to do is submit a well-sourced, fully impartial addition to the article to the talk page, then it can be discussed and it can be added to the article. So far, no pro-GG voice has managed to do so, instead they're content to troll the talk page while harassing editors (e.g. they put up a hit-list of editors it didn't like to Wikia, which got taken down as against the ToS).
  They even gave GG their own page to practice on to provide their own article that was impartial and well sourced. The first edit contained a racial slur, then GG got bored when they realised it was too hard. Now all they do is harangue the parties responsible on Twitter. It boils down, again and again, to "Actually making things better is hard, so we'll just yell at the top of our voices until the status quo is maintained or somebody does it for us. KEEP SENDING EMAILS"
  The sad part about this is that Jimmy Wales actually approached GG members as equals to make things better, and even gave some constructive criticism on how to improve GG's PR problem. It was hurled back in his face for even daring to suggest there was a PR issue.
  So the cycle continues. People don't take GG seriously, so GG try to shout louder, so even less people take them seriously. Some places are reporting GG as over since last month, because it's descended into a movement that only exists to aggressively defend it's own status as a movement - and now the actual needed discussion about ethics has been tainted by that reactionary, over-the-top response. Such a pity.
if i was a famous celebrety like Colbert by FudRucker · 2014-12-21 15:15 · Score: 0

i would tell Viacom & comedy central to stick it where the sun dont shine, and to back off suing google (youtube) over my videos, it is the celebrities that make Viacom significant (not the other way around) someone with the notoriety of Colbert could go to work anywhere, i would be sure to include something like that in a contract before i signed

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
amazing how threatened you young boys are by Presto+Vivace · 2014-12-21 15:59 · Score: 1

my thoughts preciscely https://www.youtube.com/user/f...
PROTECT BALLS FROM SARKEESIAN! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 16:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

BUT ETHICS1!!111ONEONEONE! Yes, it's kind of amazing how this bunch of obnoxious gamergating cunts have been whipped up into such a misogynistic frenzy by fairly tame documentaries making relatively obvious observations about the formulaic and trope-ridden world of popular gaming. Maybe heavy cannabis use among dudebros is a contributory factor in the spectacular levels of paranoia on show.
WTF is Stephen Colbert ? by Martin+S. · 2014-12-21 19:15 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Massive American cultural assumption or what!
1. Re:WTF is Stephen Colbert ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot is still an American site. And water is still wet.
You mean he not only won Television by obarthelemy · 2014-12-21 22:33 · Score: 2

he also won the Youtube, and the Internet !

--
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
1. Re:You mean he not only won Television by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  he also won the Youtube, and the Internet !
  Sounds like it's time for a No-Holds-Barred Cage Match between Howard Stern and Stephen Colbert.
So 100% of the comments were illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 23:08 · Score: 0

So 100% of the comments were death and/or rape threats? If not, then banning ALL comments isn't banning death and/or rape threats, it's banning any comment and therefore censorship.
You'd be as right claiming DPRK censor terrorist threats and plans to kill innocent government officials and their police. Just like in NYC.
1. Re:So 100% of the comments were illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  So 100% of the comments were death and/or rape threats? If not, then banning ALL comments isn't banning death and/or rape threats, it's banning any comment and therefore censorship.
  You'd be as right claiming DPRK censor terrorist threats and plans to kill innocent government officials and their police. Just like in NYC.
  A private enterprise can close, open and edit their forums however they like. And if someone think their freedom and right to do this makes us North Korea, they should try to move there to get some perspective.
Hunting for 'poon. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-21 23:55 · Score: -1

And for feminist leaders, a chance to get power to make the world A Better Place (tm). According to their opinion on what's wrong in the world, anyway.
WTF is Google ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-22 01:38 · Score: 1

Massive Internet cultural assumption or what!
Gotten out of hand by Stele · 2014-12-22 02:56 · Score: 1

I recently got two take-down requests for two videos I put up on YouTube. They were both trade-show demo reel videos that I helped produce showing post-produced results in television shows and movies from software I wrote. These videos were 20 years old, but I thought it would be good to preserve them.
Paramount wanted one taken down for a 2-second clip from a Paramount movie. Someone else wanted the other taken down because I guess they owned the copyright on the music we had bought to accompany the video.
One could argue that putting these videos up was entirely fair use but I didn't argue at all and just yanked them. Not worth it.