Liberal censorship on YouTube

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Perhaps in your mindset legislation should be present in everything, but I believe that YouTube has a moral duty to uphold freedom of expression.

I agree, it would be nice, but as there's technically nothing to be forcibly done about it ATM, I don't see the point in fretting about it.

Perhaps it's idealistic of me, and I do understand that YouTube is a private organization that can do whatever the hell it wishes (such as banning any video they disagree with), but it's also a community, and I think there should be some morality to it.

Again, I agree, but there's nothing we can really do to force them into such a mindset, short of making them feel bad.

I think you and I will both agree that trying to legislate the internet is fruitless, but that's now what I'm advocating.

Fair enough.

 

[greenpeace]

You know, Eric, some people on here think you ARE Bill O'Reilly... http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=189490

what the heck? if that was Bill it is obviously implying what the situation was on the foxnews website, because red stranger said in his email that their was some liberal title on fox.
and the way Bill ended that e-mail was just awful and bigotted.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Your question is a non issue and I refuse to answer it, we're not discussing theoretical situations that will never happen based on current trends.

how is it a non issue?

you wouldnt complain if youtube was right wing biased. admit it.

 

[Peri]

It was a rhetorical question. I was not expecting an answer from you.
If you are for freedom of expression you have to protest even when you disagree with the view put forward otherwise it is known as whining.

 

[Homie]

You know, Eric, some people on here think you ARE Bill O'Reilly... http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=189490

What the crap? That makes no sense. Erik Mesoy knows Norwegian, I have sent him PMs in Norwegian and he has replied in Norwegian. So unless Bill O'Reilley knows Norwegian (or someone who does) Erik Mesoy does not = O'Reilley.

Was Red Stranger pranking or what? The mod closed the thread saying Red was duped, but fails to explain how. How could Erik dupe Red, how could he have gotten the e-mail sent to O'Reilley?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Stop discussing closed threads in other threads. I don't want you to discuss this.

Back on topic:

As I understand, YouTube has a button or link labeled "Flag this video as inappropriate" which anyone can press. Enough people pressed it for the video in question that the video was restricted until YouTube got around to reinstating it. If anyone has a liberal bias, it's reality (aka the internet populace), not YouTube. Also, Michelle Malkin later called for her followers to report liberal videos so that they would be restricted.

 

[greenpeace]

Stop discussing closed threads in other threads. I don't want you to discuss this.

OMG!!! He's Bill!!! OMG!!!


sorry

 

[Grisu]

Perhaps in your mindset legislation should be present in everything, but I believe that YouTube has a moral duty to uphold freedom of expression. Perhaps it's idealistic of me, and I do understand that YouTube is a private organization that can do whatever the hell it wishes (such as banning any video they disagree with), but it's also a community, and I think there should be some morality to it.

it's a private company. you know, capitalism and all that...if you don't like it, start your own internet video site. freedom of expression doesn't mean that a single site has to put out every single POV. would a conservative blog be forced to post a liberal point of view?

it's like with CFC here, the owner decides what he wants and what he doesn't. Nobody's forcing you to use YouTube.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hey! You tube hasn't done anything wrong here.

According to your own article:

Maryrose, of The YouTube Team, said if any video viewer flags a video as inappropriate, it is forwarded to a queue for the company's customer support team to review.

"Videos are NEVER automatically removed simply because they've been flagged," Maryrose said. "Every single flagged video is reviewed by someone at YouTube who then determines if the video contains material that is against our terms of use."

You tube users, probably people like you who don't actually really care about freedom of expression, are the ones who flagged the video. It was reviewed by the company's customer support and is now available without login.

Read the stories you post before jumping to conclusions (once again) about the evilness of Liberals.

Quoted because I think Garric missed it

"The boy who cried 'Liberals'!!"

 

[The Yankee]

Moderator Action: Cease discussion of the closed Bill O'Reilly thread now.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[CurtSibling]

Holy Crap! You tube has turned ultra-liberal! .

And they have reds under the bed too!

 

[Rik Meleet]

It was rhetorical but the question was would you complain if such an ad was not shown on you tube.

Your question is a non issue and I refuse to answer it, we're not discussing theoretical situations that will never happen based on current trends.

- strikethrough by Garric.
Is this your idea of non-censoring?

 

[Phlegmak]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52405

To summarize for those who do not have the time or patience to read the whole story: YouTube banned an anti-Democratic ad, claiming it was inappropriate, but now they have uncensored it because of public pressure. There was nothing remotely offensive about the ad, however it was still flagged because of YouTube's liberal bias.

This is not the first time YouTube has done this. They have banned people advocating a right-wing point of view from posting videos, prevented pro-American videos to be posted, and have disallowed videos critical of Islam (while videos critical of Christianity are fine [on a side note, can someone explain why it appears liberals are so keen on protecting Islam?]) while videos offensive to Christianity are a-ok. IMO this shows a vast liberal bias on YouTube.

Should websites like YouTube be free to censor at will anything they disagree with, or should freedom of expression still apply to [internet] sources?

Your logic is wrong from the get go. I don't see that Youtube banned the ad, but rather just put a disclaimer at the beginning of it. It also seemed to be explained rather clearly. It was flagged by users and eventually Youtube unflagged it.

And what on Earth does this have to do with liberals?

Offtopic: Does it matter to you that Youtube removed the Clinton-Wallace interview?

 

[Phlegmak]

If there was an ad of an equally poor standard ridiculing Bush and this was not shown on You tube, would there still have been this thread by the same poster?

He clearly would not, since he did not, when the same thing happened with the Clinton-Wallace interview.

Your question is a non issue and I refuse to answer it, we're not discussing theoretical situations that will never happen based on current trends.

Based on current trends, it has already happened.

It was a rhetorical question. I was not expecting an answer from you.
If you are for freedom of expression you have to protest even when you disagree with the view put forward otherwise it is known as whining.

It's not rhetorical.

Article which is no longer available:

Spoiler :

Only FOX, I swear. While the video of Olbermann a few weeks back was taken down by Google Video because they had squirreled out that I was not the creator of the content, YouTube had let me use news videos from various sources with no problems.

So imagine my surprise when I check my email today and see the following.

Dear Member:

This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Fox News Network, LLC claiming that this material is infringing:

And this message popped up when I tried to visit the video’s page:

This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner Fox News Network, LLC because its content was used without permission

Again, keep in mind that I have CNN and MSNBC videos up as well, some with mild popularity. But of course a few days later FOX comes after me and complains. Now, I don’t have a problem with copyrighted material being prevented from spreading for free. That’s fine. But it only makes sense in the case where its circulation determines the creator’s income.

News, ideally, should be free to spread. News organizations should not have a problem with old news circulating freely. You’ll pay for a movie to watch it a few times, you’ll buy a ticket to a movie that came out last year. You’ll turn to a TV show that you’ve already seen just because you like it.

But that’s not why you turn to news stations. You turn on FOX or CNN to see things you haven’t before. That’s the point of news. You want to see what’s going on NOW. The purpose of news is to have it circulated. This video is an interview, would they have told me to remove the transcript from my site had I uploaded that? Same information, but now you have to read it instead of watch it.

Generally, news organizations don’t really have the time to replay old episodes, and this 30 minute interview of which half I had uploaded will never be seen in its entirety on FOX ever again. It’s not like they’re relying on rerun ratings.

There are only two reasons for a news organization to want that video taken down, because they plan on selling it or because they don’t want people to see it. I doubt heavily that this interview will ever be sold because of how bad it makes them look. Can I assume that they want it down so no one will see how much of a smackdown Clinton gave Wallace? The transcript is there, but it’s different in text than in video.

Curiously, digging around on FOX’s site itself doesn’t yield the full interview either. You can get bits and pieces, but not the full thing. It’s gone AWOL. And the one bit you can get starts right off with Clinton on the offense, forgetting the full lead-in.

You can search for the video on YouTube yourself. Click on any of the results, you’ll see the same message. FOX hasn’t done this with the O’Reilly clips, none of the other bits from FOX that litter YouTube. They went through and reported every single instance of this video being circulated. It’s as if they’re trying to erase the actuality of it in order to facilitate their talking heads’ distorting it.

So, I say this with all objectivity: **** you, FOX.

From this site, part of the original article is still visible.
http://themostboringblogintheworld....-video-removed-by-fox-news-transcipt-instead/

Apparently the video is back on Youtube, since I just searched for it and found it. However, those liberal bastards at Youtube had no problem removing this interview, and garric had no problem not making a big fuss over it.

 

[Phlegmak]

Hey, goobers. Amazon promotes homosexuality for children. Gasp!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51862

I just thought this was rather funny. It's a total nonissue yet the WorldNetDaily makes a big deal of it.

From the article.

The website explains that it takes information that a customer has submitted, such as what movies they purchase, already have, or have written reviews about, and then makes recommendations based on that.
...
"I can't see any reason for these movies to bring up a recommendation for a movie about homosexual lovers unless someone in Amazon has an agenda (especially in the IT dept)," she wrote.

Obviously, if this is problem for some people, and a recurring problem at Amazon, then they have some bugs in their software. It's so obviously not an agenda. But oh well, we can look for bogeymen wherever we want.

EDIT: Before I get a warning from a moderator about posting offtopic content, these two statements from me are 100% applicable to the content of this thread:
* It's a total nonissue yet the WorldNetDaily makes a big deal of it.
* But oh well, we can look for bogeymen wherever we want.

 

[De Lorimier]

Man WorldNetDaily is an even bigger piece of garbage than I tought. They post big misleading headlines ignoring the very content of their articles in regards to what actually took place. I understand more and more why certain folks like this site so much.

 

[ArneHD]

This isn't censorship, it's democracy in practice.

 

[Bill3000]

Just to remind you people, it is an ad hominem attack to refuse to believe in an argument (or otherwise) just because of the bias of a certain source. It can certainly make you more skeptical to believe it, and thus but it is a logical fallacy to all out refuse to argue against the source just because of its bias/partisanness/etc.

That is, you can't make one of your premises of your counterargument that the source is garbage; this has no bearing on the actual issue. But you can be skeptical of the claim and its opinions, and it has a higher requirement for acceptability. No offense intended to anyone - just want to help out debates here.

As for my opinion (Not really interested in actually debating in this thread, as it's doomed to PRH anyway) - I'm against all censorship, pretty much, and I don't think this should have been censored, regardless of the message or not. I actually thought it was humorous. More importantly, even if YouTube is going to censor something, how about something less likely to violate freedom of speech, like the huge amount of illegal videos circulating there? Then again, that's pretty much the entire reason why YouTube is so popular, no?

 

[De Lorimier]

Thank you captain decorum. But everyone who questionned the source in this thread made a point of explaining thier opposition to garric's pov at the same time.

This was not censorship, this was you tube users flagging a video wich was reviewed by the support team and is still there for everyone to see. No big deal.

 

[Bill3000]

Woops. I feel dumb. Sucks for me trying to make a point and ignoring the discussion altogether. Then it's simply not newsworthy, really.