Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube Accused Of Censorship

Hemos posted more than 7 years ago | from the the-joys-of-running-content dept.

522

writes "According to WorldNetDaily, Youtube is engaging in censorship. A quote from the article summarizes well: The popular video-sharing YouTube site, which is being purchased by Google for $1.65 billion, limited access to a political ad that mocks the Clinton administration's policy on North Korea, but contains no profanity, nudity or other factors generally thought objectionable." It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative

cancel ×

522 comments

censoring (1, Funny)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 7 years ago | (#16421891)

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

YouTube is censoring Slashdot now, too! Aieyeeee!

Re:censoring (0, Offtopic)

skrew (111096) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422005)

Narrator: In A.D. 2006, Youtube was happening Captain: What happen ? Mechanic: Somebody set up us the google. Operator: We get signal. Captain: What ! Operator: Main video turn on. Captain: It's you !! CATS: How are you users !! CATS: All your video are belong to Sergey Brin. CATS: You are on the way to flagged down. Captain: What you say !! CATS: You have no chance to watch your video. Make your google video time. CATS: Ha Ha Ha Ha ..!..

YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (5, Informative)

gasmonso (929871) | more than 7 years ago | (#16421909)

It's not YouTube per say, it's people flagging the video as inappropriate. That causes the restriction to be put on. Once YouTube became aware of that, they immediately removed the warning. I just watched the video on YouTube.

http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (1, Redundant)

aonaran (15651) | more than 7 years ago | (#16421933)

Mods please mark parent informative, I fear this one is going to get out of control if this comment gets buried

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (4, Insightful)

IAmTheDave (746256) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422041)

The question of "why" it gets flagged is even easier to understand, when the post itself includes commentary like

"It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative"

Was this comment absolutely necessary or even relevant to the story? Has free speach suddenly become restricted for a person that is "just a wee bit" one way or the other? The entire point of the accusation of censorship is that any speech at any level was moderated.

Certainly YouTube has rules - no sexually explicit content, fine. But I just read their terms of use and I don't see anything about moderation of content that may be a "wee bit conservative."

Then again, it's like mods on Slashdot (which I believe may have been at least a part of the point of the parent post) which is that given the ability to moderate, people will always mod down speech they don't agree with, completely disregarding said person or organization's absolute right to say it.

Disappointing indeed that the "flagged" content wasn't reviewed by YouTube and simply left be, being that it doesn't violate the terms of use of the site.

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (4, Insightful)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422137)

No, the point was that a site who has no clue about what is actually going on (nor has the desire to check the facts) is crying "'They' are censoring conservatives". That site happens to be -surprize- conservative.

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (4, Informative)

Senior Frac (110715) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422413)

Was this comment absolutely necessary or even relevant to the story? Has free speach suddenly become restricted for a person that is "just a wee bit" one way or the other? The entire point of the accusation of censorship is that any speech at any level was moderated.

It is a tenet of critical reading skills. We always teach our students to "consider the source" when reading and "consider the audience" when writing. Giving the reader a heads-up about any historical political bias is a legitimate act.

I fail to see how free speech has been restricted as you appear to imply. They said it and anybody can read it. If any source has a history of being a wingnut, of any persuasion, policital or otherwise, then potential readers will benefit from knowing.

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (4, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422565)

If any source has a history of being a wingnut, of any persuasion, policital or otherwise, then potential readers will benefit from knowing.

Because a tenet of critical reading skills is to pigeonhole your source, so you can predict what they're going to say in advance. That saves the grubby annoying trouble of deciding for yourself the trustworthiness of the source by, say, examining multiple samples of the source's work.

I know I'm awfully grateful when someone points out the heretics for me in advance.

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (1)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422585)

I guess the writer could have said - "The Conservative WorldNetDaily" instead, but the topic shouldn't be taken serious, so the writer ended it on a non-serious note. People are too sensitive around this time of the year with their Political Menstrual Syndrome. Try not to get all bent out of shape about it.

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16422587)

...when the post itself includes commentary like:"...WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative"
True, "conserative", is too good of a name for neo-con ditto heads.

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (5, Funny)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 7 years ago | (#16421947)

The best part is that the article explains in detail how the flagging process and review that got it unflagged works, and then goes on to blame the liberals at Google for the users of youtube flagging content.

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (4, Insightful)

qw(name) (718245) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422077)

If it was any other year besides an election year nobody would care. But since the political karma is high this season, everyone's quick to cry "censorship".

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (5, Insightful)

El Torico (732160) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422089)

Both P and GP posts are correct. The video is available with no restrictions or warnings, and the article has this statement,

"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."

Basically, the WorldNetDaily either is too stupid to understand what happened or is ignoring facts. Either way, it raises questions about their competence and/or honesty. If they are stupid or dishonest about this, then what else are they wrong about?

Wrong. (0)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 7 years ago | (#16421963)

In an interview the YouTube dude said nothing gets the warning flag clickthrough without being reviewed by a YUouTube employee first.

Wrong wrong wrong and wrong (2, Informative)

JonnyCalcutta (524825) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422037)

Please re-read the article. The warning is attached when it is flagged by viewers. It then goes into a queue to await review by a YouTube employee. The YouTube employee then decides what further action to take, such as remove the warning or remove the video

So once again, nothing to see here, please move along.

Re:Wrong. (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422219)

You fail. He said "nothing is removed" without being reviewed first.

Mod Parent up!! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16421989)

It was already obvious from the summary that this looks like a typical convservative rant without subtstance. /. is becoming more like digg.
*sigh*

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (0, Redundant)

pcaylor (648195) | more than 7 years ago | (#16421991)

Not exactly. The way the process is supposed to work is that when a user flags a video as inappropriate, it is reviewed by a YouTube employee before being permanently flagged. So someone from YouTube did flag the video as being inappropriate.

The only possible (albeit very weak) explanation for an inappropriate tag is that there is a brief seen in the video in which the underwear of "Madeline Albright" can be seen when she splits a seam in her skirt.

Either that, or someone just screwed up.

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (1, Informative)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422217)

No, the way the process is supposed to work and does work is that when a user flags a video as inappropriate, a warning is immediately put on it, as YouTube wants to err on the side of caution to avoid having the type of conservative groups who think seeing a flash of a nipple on TV will permanently damage any normal person viewing it complaining about how they're a porn site that must be shut down immediately.

If they did this without having a review process that causes each flagging to be reviewed so non-objectionable content can be unflagged, this would be a problem. As it is, it's a temporary inconvenience for unpopular but not objectionable content, but hardly "censorship".

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (-1, Flamebait)

tbannist (230135) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422247)

Most likely, someone flagged it because it's essentially a political lie. There are lot of people who are more disturbed by slander than nudity.

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (4, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422499)

Most likely, someone flagged it because it's essentially a political lie.

Where? I saw it and saw satire and comedy, but nothing outright dishonest. If you disagree with it, does that make it a lie?

There are lot of people who are more disturbed by slander than nudity.

And these are the same people screaming for tolerence and free speech.

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422505)

What is a "political lie"? Is that a truth that you find distasteful?

Per say...? (-1, Offtopic)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422009)

It's interesting that anyone that says "per say" when they mean "per se" feels comfortable in calling anyone else a "Dumb @ss".

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/perse.html [wsu.edu]

Re:Per say...? (-1, Offtopic)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422047)

You sir are a gr@mm@r n@zi.

-Eric

Re:Per say...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16422213)

"Language nazi" would be more like it.

Latin != English.

Re:Per say...? (1, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422333)

Latin != English.

I'll save this post as a memento.

-Eric

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16422011)

Yes, but when have conservatives let facts and truths get in the way of their agendas. Shoots, they will not even let morals guide their actions.

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (0, Flamebait)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422277)

I saw the hyper-idiot Michelle Malkin whining last week that YouTube was allowing "Islamofacists" to post hate videos, but YouTube had "gone Dhimmi" [I had to look it up too] and was blocking her innocent happy bunny fun videos telling people to run for the hills and shoot first if the Muslims are coming. YouTube is quite welcome to flag her group as unsuitable for children.

Anti-Piracy options compared to Censorship (2, Informative)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422351)

Also there is the forthcoming YouTube AntiPiracy system [yahoo.com] . or as one wit put it: YouTube is preparing to implement new technology necessary to make it suck

A technology designed to detect copyright material could give YouTube a needed dose of legal legitimacy and calm any concerns Google Inc. has about spending $1.65 billion on the Internet video site. But that same technology could hurt YouTube's edgy appeal.

While YouTube is known as the place to find almost any kind of video clip, recent agreements with high-profile content creators require YouTube to deploy an audio-signature technology that can spot a low-quality copy of a licensed music video or other content. YouTube would have to substitute an approved version of the clip or take the material down automatically.

Analysts said that stepped-up monitoring by entertainment companies raises the likelihood that YouTube fans won't find what they're used to getting -- and will go searching for the next online video rebel. [...]

Some analysts doubt the screening technology will be foolproof. For example, detecting someone singing a copyright song on a homemade video could be difficult because the sound would not exactly match the original recording.


etc. Nevermind Homeland Security, if you want to be paranoid.

Re:YouTube Is Not Censoring Dumb @ss! (1)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422411)

It's not YouTube per say, it's people flagging the video as inappropriate.

So it's like people at digg burying a story as 'inaccurate' when the don't agree with the content of the story? Or the mods at Slashdot moderating a post as 'Troll' when they don't agree?

And by the way, I never thought I would see a WorldNetDaily story on Slashdot's front page. I'm looking out my window for flying pigs. I can't wait to see what this thread devolves to.

That's just a working theory, not a fact (1)

artemis67 (93453) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422549)

Every major news organization has asked YouTube why the video got flagged as inappropriate. YouTube has not given a reason.

If the answer was as simple as the user community flagging the video, why don't they just say that?

doesn't matter (0, Troll)

Hawkxor (693408) | more than 7 years ago | (#16421917)

Wouldn't surprise me too much if this were true; but in either case the audience of youtube is so predominately young and radically liberal, that even if there was more conservative-friendly material on that site it would all get rated out of existence pretty quickly, methinks.

Re:doesn't matter (2)

shrubsky (661474) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422409)

"Wouldn't surprise me too much if this were true; but in either case the audience of youtube is so predominately young and radically liberal, that even if there was more conservative-friendly material on that site it would all get rated out of existence pretty quickly, methinks."

Hmm... :%s/youtube/slashdot/g

I know, cheap shot, but it was too easy.

Good or Bad? (3, Insightful)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 7 years ago | (#16421921)

Bad, if you consider YouTube a news or public information site.

Good, possibly, if they are pandering to their target audience to maximize viewership. You don't get equal time on the Daily Show either.

And yeah, I'm one of those conservative folks who was annoyed by this; but hey, its a entertainment site.

Re:Good or Bad? (2, Insightful)

endemoniada (744727) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422099)

Precisely. Had YouTube been some sort of public service channel, censoring something submitted by users would be rather bad taste. However, they're not, and they have every right to chose what kind of material they want to show or not show on their own site.

This is no more censorship than any webforum anywhere on the Internet. Certain things are allowed, other things aren't.

Re:Good or Bad? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422121)

It's a private company and a private website. They can put whatever they damn well want on it.

Funny that these conservatives never seem to object to the right-wing bias of the private talk radio industry (which even goes out over public radio spectrum).

-Eric

Re:Good or Bad? (5, Insightful)

dsci (658278) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422427)

Funny that these conservatives never seem to object to the right-wing bias of the private talk radio industry (which even goes out over public radio spectrum).

What bias of the INDUSTRY are you talking about? Let's not be disingenuous here. Liberals have all the opportunities conservatives do to field talk shows. I've heard them on the air, actually. Several of them.

The problem you have to face is that talk radio, like any other radio format (except perhaps NPR, which shows quite a liberal leaning most of the time), is a BUSINESS. The talkers must gain an audience and keep it, so that the stations can sell advertising.

A factual analysis of the liberal attempts at talk radio show that they just don't make money. It seems there is less of a market for liberals bashing of conservatives than most liberals would care to admit.

One last point: those airwaves are not really public - the stations, via their broadcast license, "owns" a frequency in their market. It's misleading to act like this is analogous to "conservatives can stand on the public street corner and say what they want, but liberals cannot." As I opened my reply, liberal talk show hosts have the same opportunities in the business conservative ones do.

Re:Good or Bad? (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422611)

I think the fact that Air America keeps bobbing under the waves like a bad swimmer supports the theory that talk radio simply isn't that interested in the leftist world view.

Re:Good or Bad? (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422149)

No, I think youtube have it about right.

If people mark a video as questionable it gets the cover sheet.
You can still see the video if you confirm you are an adult.
after youtube staff verify the video actions are taken (deletion or removal or the flag).

Its not censorship or anything.
its common sense.

Re:Good or Bad? (0, Flamebait)

@madeus (24818) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422487)

I'm one of those conservative folks who was annoyed by this

And apparently 'one of those conservative folks that don't bother to check out the story first' before crying foul.

What's wrong with being conservative? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16421935)

It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative

So, unless someone toes a liberal party line their opinion has no value?

Subjective "Reporting" (2, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16421957)

So, unless someone toes a liberal party line their opinion has no value?
The problem is that this article seems to be primarily opinion oriented. Meaning it doesn't have a lot of news content.

Frankly, after reading this, I must say that this is more an opinionated editorial than an objective piece of news. I'm shocked that /. would select this report of YouTube censorship instead of another article from a more reputable news source

Re:Subjective "Reporting" (2, Interesting)

tbannist (230135) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422305)

That may just be the most reputable news source reporting on the incident. I just checked google news, there's only 7 articles on this, all from far right web sites.

Re:Subjective "Reporting" (4, Insightful)

dsci (658278) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422311)

The problem is that this article seems to be primarily opinion oriented. Meaning it doesn't have a lot of news content.

I'm shocked that /. would select this report of YouTube censorship instead of another article from a more reputable news source

Again, to reiterate the GP's post, WND is not a reputable news source because it's conservative?

You can call this an opinion piece if you'd like, but stating FACTS like the video was available for viewing on YouTube is reporting, not editorial. From the FTA:

limited access to a political ad that mocks the Clinton administration's policy on North Korea, but contains no profanity, nudity or other factors generally thought objectionable. What in that statement is OPINION?

Further into the article, we get:

"However, after a brief period of accessibility, the verification page started appearing on YouTube. It asked that: "This video may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community. To view this video, please verify you are 18 or older by logging in or signing up." Today the verification page on the spoof was removed."

I have to say, that seems like some decent FACTUAL reporting.

(1) They state that the verification page was present due to USERS ratings.
(2) The point out that the verification page has been removed.

Your choice of insult for WND is unwarranted.

Re:What's wrong with being conservative? (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422273)

Also, if you disagree with someone on politics, facts don't matter.

Re:What's wrong with being conservative? (-1, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422379)

What's wrong with being conservative? One word: greed.

Re:What's wrong with being conservative? (2, Insightful)

shrubsky (661474) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422475)

"What's wrong with being conservative? One word: greed."

OK, I've already posted something on this thread that'll make me unpopular, so why stop now?

being conservative != greed

To a conservative, wanting to take someone else's money is being greedy. To a liberal, wanting to keep your own money is being greedy.

Re:What's wrong with being conservative? (0, Troll)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422405)

So, unless someone toes a liberal party line their opinion has no value?

So, unless someone believes in a world that isn't defined by cartoonish political theater, they lack the intelligence to understand a joke of wry understatement?

Re:What's wrong with being conservative? (1)

dsci (658278) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422563)

Except it was not a joke. That line in the /. summary was probably put there for one purpose: to flame.

Either to flame the liberals to come out and say "yeah right, curse you WND."

Or to flame (those few) conservatives on /. to defend WND.

If I may paraphrse the GP, I'll now ask YOU: if you don't toe the party line here on /., you "lack intelligence"?

Re:What's wrong with being conservative? (2, Insightful)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422513)

No. It means that the WorldNetDaily intentionally published a false, inflamatory story in the hopes of getting people to click on the video and watch it.

They definitely managed to get a lot more PR than such a tiny, silly, thing deserved.

Re:What's wrong with being conservative? (1)

@madeus (24818) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422613)

So, unless someone toes a liberal party line their opinion has no value?

When someone who is politically motivated makes an assertion that is not true, then their opinion on the matter has no value.

It's not what I would call a "liberal party line" it's more a "human beings with an ounce of common sense line".

Of course, if you don't like it you are free to go with the conservative party line that it's all a conspiracy by "the liberal media".

ah, yes...conservatives... (0, Flamebait)

drakaan (688386) | more than 7 years ago | (#16421955)

...It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative

Right. Point out that there's a grain-of-salt aspect to it since the reporting organization is right-wing. I wonder if a similar comment would have survived to the slashdot front page if moveon.org complained that YouTube was blocking access to a video that criticized Bush's policy on Saudi Arabia (and was bereft of nudity, violence, etc)...

It *must* be election season. Between slashdot and digg I can hardly browse without stepping in politics.

Re:ah, yes...conservatives... (1)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422163)

I wonder if a similar comment would have survived to the slashdot front page if moveon.org complained that YouTube was blocking access to a video that criticized Bush's policy on Saudi Arabia (and was bereft of nudity, violence, etc)...

Of course it would, and it would have resulted in a barrage of "OMG 1984" comments in the discussion.

You need look no further (1)

paranode (671698) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422607)

Than the wide acceptance of Michael Moore films as 'fact', to know that this would be true.

Re:ah, yes...conservatives... (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422617)

One should always consider the source when reading articles. I don't think it's unreasonable that the summary points out the possible conservative bias of the source since most people here have probably never heard of this source.

Here on /. you can filter most of the political articles. Turn off the politics and YRO sections. Your problem is solved.

Uhm. Yeah. (1)

CaffeineAddict2001 (518485) | more than 7 years ago | (#16421959)

I seem to remember a certain video game simulation of the Clinton era whitehouse being featured on YouTube. I think it ended with "You lose. It's your wife!"

bogus (5, Informative)

Stalyn (662) | more than 7 years ago | (#16421981)

The video [youtube.com] is up and no longer flagged. A video becomes flagged when enough users mark it and then a YouTube employee will either verify it should be removed/flagged. In this case they removed the initial flag and kept the video.

Re:bogus (2, Interesting)

RevMike (632002) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422169)

The video is up and no longer flagged. A video becomes flagged when enough users mark it and then a YouTube employee will either verify it should be removed/flagged. In this case they removed the initial flag and kept the video.

If that is the case, then no problem. According to the article the a video is flagged only when a YouTube employee reviews the video - at the request of the community - and decides that it should be flagged. Do you have any references that say the article got it wrong?

Assuming for the moment that YouTube did flag it, rather than the community, the question then comes down to whether this was within policy or whether some YouTube employee acted on his own.

In the end, there are too many unknowns that need to be clarified before anyone condems YouTube.

Re:bogus (5, Informative)

Stalyn (662) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422253)

YouTube users can flag any video as containing pornography, mature content or graphic violence, depicting illegal acts or being racially or ethnically offensive. A video is removed -- as Ms. Malkin's was on Sept. 28 -- only if a review by the company's customer support department agrees that it is inappropriate, or that the video is on its face in violation of the site's terms of use.

NYTimes - "A Slippery Slope of Censorship at YouTube" [nytimes.com]

Re:bogus (1)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422327)

Actually, according to the article no content is removed without being reviewed, it's given a warning.

Also, according to the article, the flagging was removed before the article was actually posted on the website. That is, the author and editors knew that YouTube wasn't censoring the content and wrote an article about how they were censoring the content anyway. If that's doesn't show dishonesty and a complete lack of journalistic integrity, I don't know what does.

It's be like if a liberal news site posted an article with the headline "President Bush Kidnaps and Rapes Children", with 10 paragraphs about how the President raped children, then the last paragraph stated that actually he didn't rape children, but they wouldn't be surprised if he did some day, because after all he's a conservative.

Re:bogus (1)

Phormion (861420) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422603)

According to the article the a video is flagged only when a YouTube employee reviews the video - at the request of the community - and decides that it should be flagged. Do you have any references that say the article got it wrong?

Ah, come on people, stop being ridiculous. How much are you using YouTube? There's a ridiculous amount of harmless videos flagged as 'inappropriate', and teenagerish black metal videos with nudity which aren't. I'm guessing the review by the YouTube employee is a mere formality, if it's not actually 'automated'. For fsck's sake, they have 60 employees, and millions of videos and users, they can't keep up with that.

It seems somebody is trying to play paranoid here, but comes out ridiculous. It's not a problem of the political orientation of the reporting site, it's just that their article is completely baseless, because of the inefficient flagging system on YouTube.

Watch it (1, Funny)

pubjames (468013) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422195)

Yes, I just watched it.

I don't know about anyone else, but that video is very persuasive. Its intelligent and serious perspective on the issues has made me realise how the current situation with North Korea is actually the fault of the Democrats. I suggest everyone watches it to see the quality of discourse on the Republican side of this debate.

So what? (3, Informative)

endemoniada (744727) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422007)

Youtube is a "private" site. It can, and obviously will, censor whatever the hell it will.

There is no constitution on the Internet. There is no free speech. There is only the right to say whatever the hell you want, and hope someone will listen to you. If they don't, too bad.

That said, I don't approve of censoring anything. I think it's cowardly and serves no real purpose other than to shield people from things they may not necessarily want to be shielded from. But it IS the right of youtube to chose what they want to have on their site, and what the don't want. Obviously, they don't want people being overly political. That's their call.

Deal with it.

Slashdot accused of censorship? (1)

Ligur (453963) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422033)

Since slashdot utilizes the same method of user-censorship of comments, does this mean slashdot is accusing itself of censorship by having this article on the frontpage?

Re:Slashdot accused of censorship? (1)

Ligur (453963) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422067)

Damn, I wish you could delete your own comments...
That should be WorldNetDaily accusing slashdot of censorship. Which isn't nearly as amusing.

Re:Slashdot accused of censorship? (3, Funny)

Rotten168 (104565) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422191)

Slashdot's moderation system is a form of censorship. Opinions that don't follow the anti-Microsoft, anti-American party line are regularly censored. People on Slashdot will complain about free speech zones and then mod down posts that they simply don't agree with. Happens all the time.

Mod parent DOWN! (1)

Servo (9177) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422361)

Ok, just kidding...

100% censorship free is not only impossible, its not acceptable. I'm not saying we should be censoring things we don't agree with, but its inevitable that things considered offensive will eventually be censored by the community in one form or another. Remember, just because you have free speech doesn't mean you get to stick it in my face.

Re:Slashdot accused of censorship? (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422363)

I could be wrong here, but last time I checked Slashdot wasn't a government.

If Slashdot has become a government rather than a privately-owned web site since the last time I looked, please correct me here.

Re:Slashdot accused of censorship? (3, Insightful)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422495)

Hilarious that you got modded up for this. I fully expect it to get to +5. Did you see, for example, the recent global warming post? Something like 80% of the +5 comments were of the fringe global warming "skeptic" view. The notion that the prevailing view of Slashdot moderators is "anti-American" (ie liberal, translating from dittohead speak) is absurd. Perhaps the editors are mostly liberal, but the community has quite a large number of right-libertarians.

Re:Slashdot accused of censorship? (1)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422539)

MOD PARENT UP.

I know, I avoid political things on /. because of the huge right-wing bias. It shocks me sometimes how strong it is. Don't forget though - you're not alone on this.

Re:Slashdot accused of censorship? (4, Insightful)

Liselle (684663) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422575)

Slashdot's moderation system is a form of censorship
I don't think that word means what you think it means, sir. With two clicks I can see every -1 post in this whole discussion. You're a long-time user that ought to know this, you should be ashamed of yourself for calling the moderation system something that it is not.

Also, if you don't see any Microsoft apologists on this website, even browsing at +4, you are not paying attention at all. In general there is an anti-MS bias around here, but if you open your eyes you'll find the dissenting opinions.

On behalf of slashdotters with a clue, thank you for contributing to the dilution of a perfectly good word. Henceforth, let's associate "censorship" to mean "viewing threshold" on a stupid interbutts forum. That way, when REAL censorship happens, nobody will care.

It's also worth (0, Troll)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422039)

It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative

It's also worth pointing out that there's plenty of videos of people stripping on cam, yet none of them are censored.

Re:It's also worth (1)

epiphani (254981) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422261)

Well duh, who would want to censor that? I'd take that over depressing worlds-gonna-end crap.

Oh! So it's OK... (1)

Charles Wilson (995273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422109)

Better check out your Categories of Understanding, pal! "Oh, it's just a conservative site making these complaints." Pedophiles, ax murderers, conservatives... Tell me again about these high ideals, diversity, freedom of expression and the like. Oh yeah! For approved thought only. CW

can anyone get their facts straight (1, Insightful)

b17bmbr (608864) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422113)

only the government can censor anything. when a firm makes a decision to purposefully not provide content, that is not censorship. it might not be a policy you or I agree with, fine. every time I hear so and so is "censoring", it makes my blood boil. if you don't like waht a company does, such as Walmart not selling certain cd's, DON"T SHOP THERE, if you don't like YouTube's policies, open you own damn website. when the government says you can't do those things, then cry censorship. until then, just say YouTube made a corporate decision...

Re:can anyone get their facts straight (1)

endemoniada (744727) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422167)

It seems words like censorship, fascism and terrorism are the new 'hip' things to blurt right out these days. It doesn't matter what you talk about, or with whom. Just yell one of those words at the top of your lung when your opponent is most obviously correct, and you automatically get a point.

Rather like how any and every blog/article with one of those words in its headline will automatically end up on the Digg frontpage...

Re:can anyone get their facts straight (2, Funny)

computational super (740265) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422177)

every time I hear so and so is "censoring", it makes my blood boil.

Wal-mart is censoring movies and music. CBS, NBC and ABC are censoring TV. ClearChannel is censoring the radio. Barnes and Noble is censoring authors. AT&T is censoring the phone system. Albertsons is censoring food distributors.

Nyah nyah! Boil blood, boil!

Re:can anyone get their facts straight (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422337)

It's still censorship. It's not illegal or unconstitutional, but it's censorship just the same. It is worth making the distinction that they are censoring their site, not the content.

Also (0)

thefirelane (586885) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422131)

It also should be noted:

1) I believe I read the "censorship" was just the user community flagging the video, not Youtube. Of course, the real point of this is the desire to feel 'persecuted' so they don't both pointing that out. It is better PR if it seems your ideas are being 'censored'.. instead of 'no one wants to hear them'.

2) Even if they are.... who cares? I thought 'conservatives' were all about individual rights, as in, a private company can do whatever the hell it wants. They are quick to point this out with protestors acting against private companies (crashing shareholder meetings, etc) so why the double standard?

Re:Also (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422485)

These are Republicans, not conservatives. It's really not wise to confuse to the two. Republicans only believe in rights for Repbulicans. Anyone who's not Republican (or voting for them) should not be entitled to any rights, especially the right to vote.

You might think my comments are a little extreme, but here's a transcript from Politically Incorrect [cygnus-study.com] where Ann Coulter specifically states women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they tend to vote for Democrats.

Ah, so it didn't employ any "good censorship" (1)

computational super (740265) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422143)

limited access to a political ad that mocks the Clinton administration's policy on North Korea, but contains no profanity, nudity or other factors generally thought objectionable.

Yes, it's important that we only censor based on one arbitrary set of factors than a different arbitrary set of factors.

This will probably be considered flame bait but... (1, Flamebait)

rhartness (993048) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422151)

Fowl! Is it necessary to state a source as 'conservative'. Rightists typically view sites like BBC and CNN as 'Liberal' while leftists view sites like Fox News as 'conservative'.

Most people can distinguish when any other site tends to lean in the direction they disagree with. Must we label conservative sources and only conservative sources?

Re:This will probably be considered flame bait but (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422601)

Yes, it is. It is a salient addition to the discussion. You may argue which way certain mainstream media outlets lean, but when the source is particularly partisan (say, the Washington Times, or The American Prospect) it should be noted that there is celarly an agenda behind the outrage.

If /. ran a story about new scientific research that differences in language usage could affect the way you view food and the total amount of calories your body feels it needs, would you be curious? If the editor noted that the story was currently running in the Weekly World News [weeklyworldnews.com] , would that put the story in perspective? I think so.

So? (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422161)

Some idiot marked Harold Pinter [youtube.com] 's lecture inappropriate aswell. I had to register on youtube just to be able to watch that video.

The video is highly critical of the USA, but I don't see anything inappropriate in it.

Re:So? (1)

endemoniada (744727) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422197)

It doesn't have to be inappropriate as long as it's inconvenient. If it doesn't suit your agenda, just yell "TERRORISM!!!" and you automatically win. That's how society works these days...

Re:So? (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422235)

Btw, Pinter's lecture can be read here [nobelprize.org] in text. I just like to hear people talk, it conveys more meaning the way people emphasize things.

Re:So? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422345)

TERRORISM!

I win.

Re:So? (1)

pubjames (468013) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422483)

Yes, marking that video as inappropriate is terrible. How can a lecture by a nobel prize winner be inappropriate?

It is interesting to contrast the intelligent, clear discourse of Pinter's lecture with the Benny Hill style of that political advertisement.

Same with google video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16422207)

They have been knocking the political documentary Terrorstorm (it's quite good, BTW) down from the true count, they keep re setting it at zero so it doesn't make it into the top popular lists. Here is an article from the website about it

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/05100 6googlecensors.htm [prisonplanet.com]

And here's a thought about the phony left/right deal (article above sdaying worldnet is "conservative". I suggest growing beyond that basic understanding of politics and money and power.. That lefty/right deal exists because the goons want to keep you there. The real schism is the establisment globalists versus everyone else. They only see you as a source of exploitation and profit, and use their large scale corporate pull to keep the populations split along their phony "party" lines. Want some more evidence? Look at the blackbox voting, the only work being done against it is coming from the smaller scle grtassroots of the right, left and center and independents, the party "leaders" D or R for the most part are cooperating in ignoring it, and the MSM is going way out of their way to keep it out of the headlines, even though we have an important election coming up and it should be a top story daily. also notice how the D and R "parties", along with the corporate media, DON'T cover third parties or independents very much with their "news" reporting. Without an honest vote, and without real choices, we are really really screwed. yet fluff pieces still rule, madonna still makes more headlines than the hacked vote.

  This is done *on purpose*, especially with the TV broadcasters who use the alleged public airwaves, as part of the bread and circuses congame the ruling goons have always used to keep their herds under control. and now it has spread to the net, a natural progression. Remember, if it is profitable for a corporation to lie or do wrong, and they think they can get away with it-they will, with few exceptions. Nature of their "greed is good" beast.

These big corporations, even including youtube and google and yahoo and who cares, a ton of them, are part of the global elite now, so they will "act accordingly" to their "keep themselves rolling in loot" interests. It's up to everyone else who truly cares about freedom and honesty to see through their globalist bullshit and then "act accordingly".

wee bit? (3, Funny)

JanneM (7445) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422229)

It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative

Yes, like Charles Manson was a wee bit disturbed.

hrm (1, Insightful)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422401)

Does anyone else get the feeling that the Slashdot userbase is more conservative than the rest of the population? Bush's approval rating hovers around 35%, but the number of uprated pro-Bush comments on recent political posts is astonishing. Apparently, intelligence and critical thinking don't go hand in hand. Economics is always debatable, but how does any thinking person look at the Bush foreign or social policy and see anything but corruption, insanity, and abject failure?

Re:hrm (1)

roster238 (969495) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422469)

Sadly I can say the same for any administration since the Reagan years. I have come to realize that voting only encourages this behavior.

Manson in 08 (1, Troll)

roster238 (969495) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422415)

Did you know he was running in 08? He is a Democrat with a plan. No matter how disturbed at least he has a plan.

these critics have no internet skills (1)

m0llusk (789903) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422319)

The basis of this story has to do with web site users not being able to come to terms with a fairly simple flagging system that can be worked around by logging into a free account. There are similar problems with the craigslist site references to staff actions when user flags get content yanked. Web sites should clearly explain why content is posted, rated, or pulled, but like most other web content features this is a business opportunity that the market may or may not demand or value. Only time will tell, and trying to force the issue isn't likely to work.

So its' a youth oriented (liberal) site. (0)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422365)

So lets get this straight. Right wing talk radio will not give time to 'liberal' ideas but a left leaning "youth oriented arts & entertainment" site must. IF the right wing wants access to a "youth oriented arts & entertainment" they can create one. However the target demographic, youth, is rarly jaded enough to be right wing.

profanity and nudity (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422399)

If there already censoring profanity and nudity what's wrong with censoring other content.

Personally I don't think they should be censoring anything.

maybe it was the comments not the video (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422457)

It could've been flagged as inappropriate for the comments, not the video. Several of them are calling for the assassination of Clinton.

the real culprit is Google (0)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422491)

I don't think youTube has been censoring. The real story of the last few weeks is Google video censoring Alex Jones' Terrorstorm by reseting the views counter to keep it from the top10. There's a link here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/0 91006googleadmits.htm [prisonplanet.com]

Most people don't believe that GV made a technical error twice on this particular film when no others were effected. For this reason some people were concerned when Google bought youTube.

Personally I think that (if they're not already) it's only a matter of time before Google becomes 'evil'. There are certain consequences to being a huge public traded company.

YouTube Censorship (2, Interesting)

thethibs (882667) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422525)

It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative

Like Slashdot could be described as just a wee bit liberal?

Right wing crap is objectionable (0, Troll)

toby (759) | more than 7 years ago | (#16422581)

...any intelligent person who watched the ad would understand :)

That smell in the air this morning isn't napalm (for once) -- it's desperation among Republican lunatics.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...