Beta
×

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!

Egyptian Blogger Silenced by YouTube, Yahoo!

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the citizen-journalists-need-credentials-now dept.

Censorship 188

An anonymous reader writes "An Egyptian human rights activist has been muzzled after YouTube and Yahoo! shut down his accounts. Award-winning blogger Wael Abbas regularly writes and posts video about police brutality, torture and sexual harassment in Egypt. One of the videos — of an Egyptian bus driver being brutalized by an officer — was used as evidence to convict two members of the police force. That's a rare occurrence in a country where human-rights groups say torture is rampant. YouTube said the decision to remove Abbas' videos had nothing to do with the Egyptian government, but was rather an internal decision."

cancel ×

188 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

THIS IS THE CENSORED POST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21531245)

A few years ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I
had to take a piss. As I entered the john a big beautiful all-American
football hero type, about twenty-five, came out of one of the booths.
I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he
washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was "straight" and
married - and in any case I was sure I wouldn't have a chance with
him.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated,
hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still
warm from his sturdy young ass. I found not only the smell but the
shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left
behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It
apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat,
stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd
- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as a man's wrist.

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and
wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd
always been a heavy rimmer and had lapped up more than one little
clump of shit, but that had been just an inevitable part of eating ass
and not an end in itself. Of course I'd had jerk-off fantasies of
devouring great loads of it (what rimmer hasn't), but I had never done
it. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound
turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy
and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of the world's
handsomest young stud.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both
hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled
like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the
consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit
without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it
smelled. I've found since then that shit nearly almost does.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into
my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big brown cock,
beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and
bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet
flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had
chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed
I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I
soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd
passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily,
sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My
only regret was the donor of this feast wasn't there to wash it down
with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the
cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more
delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with
the rich bitterness of shit.

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But
then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There
was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished
them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my
briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the
shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever
unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an
unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using
them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my
mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit
trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six
orgasms in the process.

I often think of that lovely young guy dropping solid gold out
of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could,
and at least once did, bring to a grateful shiteater.

Silenced? Censorship? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21531251)

Nobody has the right to express their views through somebody else's medium, particularly graphic violence through a medium like YouTube that is marketed as family-friendly. This guy hasn't been silenced, he's been kicked off particular services. He is free to use other services, isn't he?

Let's not dilute and weaken the term "censorship" please. It is a despicable act and Google and Yahoo choosing not to provide service to him is not even close.

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (4, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531277)

There is an adult content flag for certain videos on Youtube for a reason. That is more than ample to protect users from unwanted contect. Besides, if someone finds one of his videos I doubt they did so by searching for cute pink daisies. They are owned by Google, after all.

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531765)

And if they put the video back now they can drool over all the advertising revenue from a slashdotting.

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (2, Informative)

fluffman86 (1006119) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532403)

Thanks for reminding me of that. Remind Google, too. Send them a letter and let them know what you think of censorship. You all can use mine, if you wish:

Your Address
Date of writing

Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043

To whom it may concern:

I have been a faithful user of Google for several years now. I'm proud to support a company that offers great products (search, email, calendars, photo management, videos, etc.) while remaining consumer friendly. I especially appreciate Google's efforts to "not be evil" when asked by the U.S. Government to hand over searches performed by Google's users.

It is for these reasons that I daily attempt to switch people from less consumer friendly web services like Yahoo or AOL. I warn friends and family that Yahoo has given information to the Chinese government that was used to imprison at least three Chinese journalists (Shi Tao, Li Zhi, and Jiang Lijun), while AOL released to the public every search term made on their site as well as a personally identifiable user number. Thank you, Google, for standing up for free speech and user rights.

I am, however, quite disappointed in Google today. This morning, when I logged in to my Google Homepage, I was greeted by a story on Slashdot discussing the recent YouTube banning of Egyptian blogger and free speech/anti-torture activist Wael Abbas. I realize that Abbas's videos demonstrating police brutality and torture may have been somewhat graphic and against YouTube's Terms of Service, but American users regularly post videos of people being TASERed or getting in fights. If something is indeed graphic, it is normally tagged as "mature" and still allowed to remain on YouTube.

So I ask you, Google, why are you suddenly censoring videos that were used to fight police brutality? What happened to your motto "Don't Be Evil"? Why do you stand up for the rights of Americans, yet censor free speech in other countries?

Thank you for your time. I eagerly await your response (email is fine).

(Your Name)
(Your Email)

Links to information discussed in this letter:
http://www.booyahoo.com/ [booyahoo.com]
http://tinyurl.com/28amqh [tinyurl.com]
http://tinyurl.com/2cpxvv [tinyurl.com]
http://tinyurl.com/ytk2lc [tinyurl.com]
(the above tinyurl's redirect to Google search pages)

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (1)

skeeto (1138903) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533213)

There is an adult content flag for certain videos on Youtube for a reason.

The reason is to satisfy all the dried-up prunes who yell "think of teh childrens".

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21534217)

Since Yahoo! is not mentioned in the article, does that mean Yahoo! owns Youtube?

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (5, Insightful)

redscare2k4 (1178243) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531361)

If you RTFA, there's expressed what I think is a very valid point. If youtube forbids vids containing graphical violence, then why aren't all those people uploading videos of people getting tasered by police officers (for example) getting their accounts banned. IMHO It's not a matter of "Terms of Service". It's a matter of a company choosing to apply those Terms with a double standard. A double standard that get's a the account of a guy who uses youtube to denounce torture banned. And that is wrong both ethically and legally.

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531993)

or maybe it could be that getting tasered isn't considered excessive "Graphical Violence".

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21532039)

I would argue that being tasered is a huge degree of difference from being bludgeoned by several police with clubs.

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533065)

Occam's Razor:

Those accounts haven't been suspended yet, because they haven't been "reported" enough as violating the terms of service. Please remember, YouTube isn't a person. YouTube doesn't even employ video screeners who watch all videos as they are uploaded. The screeners only look at videos that have been reported for violating the terms of service and there are also multiple different screeners who may have slightly different standards and must make judgement calls on what gets pulled and what doesn't. I doubt an account gets banned until it has been reported for multiple ToS violations across multiple videos.

Having said that I can't agree with YouTube's decision. It seems to me that there should be enough flexibility in the rules to keep users and videos that violate the terms of service but do so for good reasons. Exposing oppression and exploitation is good for humanity, and what's good for humanity should be good for YouTube.

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533083)

If you RTFA, there's expressed what I think is a very valid point.

If youtube forbids vids containing graphical violence, then why aren't all those people uploading videos of people getting tasered by police officers (for example) getting their accounts banned.
You're dealing with cultural definitions and tolerances for graphic violence. My guess would be that Google is drawing the line at what is illegal for display in the UK (a much narrower range than the U.S. where graphic violence appears every night on network TV). Blame Google if you want, but I'm not sure that you are standing on solid ground. Then again, I don't know the specifics, and I'm guessing as to their rationale.

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (1)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533869)

Better yet, why doesn't Wikileaks or whatever start up leaktube if Youtube technically doesn't allow this stuff? I think Wikileaks is a great idea and Leaktube would be perfect for things like this.

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (1)

ArikTheRed (865776) | more than 6 years ago | (#21534085)

Yes, Anarcho-Capitalist freaks, this is the utopia you all wanted! YouTube and Google have become a purely corporate run 'news' network without any government oversight or professional standards of conduct. Everything is at the whim of the company hosting the data. According to Randist theories, all of you unhappy with selective censorship should just frequent another company... except who knows how long these abuses will remain before a new (and likely equally bad) open-news source company becomes available?

Oh please, tazing != graphic violence (1)

Tanman (90298) | more than 6 years ago | (#21534205)

Being tazed isn't graphic violence -- it's just battery.

Graphic violence is beheadings, disembowelments, people getting hit so hard that their nose crushes and their eyeballs pop out. You know, GRAPHIC violence. When blood starts being shown, it starts getting into graphic territory.

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531367)

This guy hasn't been silenced, he's been kicked off particular services. He is free to use other services, isn't he?
While I would normally tend to agree with you, it doesn't sound like that's the case this time. YouTube hosts plenty of content like this one, including police brutality videos from the United States and other foreign countries. They've hosted some very graphic content, including the hanging of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. These videos have an 'adult content' flag on them, and won't be shone to visitors that have Google's SafeSearch turned on (this is the default, I believe).

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21531391)

Let's not dilute and weaken the term "censorship" please.

Dilute it? It means what it means, I suggest that people who keep slicing more and more off of the definition until there is nothing left so that they can say "see, now nothing can ever be censored again, the world is a better place to [redacted]!" are doing far more damage than people calling those who would decide what is and is not fit for others to see the censors that they are.

Actually, it is Censorship (5, Insightful)

Morosoph (693565) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532031)

Let's not dilute and weaken the term "censorship" please. It is a despicable act and Google and Yahoo choosing not to provide service to him is not even close.
If a book is censored in England, but can be read in France, it is still censored. The object of censorship is to reduce the circulation of certain material, and that is exactly what has happenned here. Yes, censorship is policy, but are you seriously suggesting that people's right not to be offended outweighs the documentation of human rights abuses? Putting these abuses up on another site means that only people who already know about such abuse will find out about it.

Private entities have the right to censor, but it remains censorship. States also have the right to censor; it doesn't stop the act from being censorship when it occurs. Nor does it prevent the act from being wrong.

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532151)

The word "Censorship" still applies whether or not it's done by the Government, and whether or not they have a right to do it.

And sure, they have a "right" to do it. Other people have a right to criticise those actions.

I mean, Microsoft have a right to release Vista, that doesn't stop people here complaining about it all the time!

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21532801)

This must be a content rights thing,

YouTube is a medium for Jackass imitators and happy slappers
but this guy was obviously not causing the violence he spread.

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (1)

Marcosll (1158487) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533523)

Censorship is everywhere. Governments usually decide what is ok and what is not and media usually tries to stay within legal confines. Yahoo can take down any video they want. Injustices can be pointed out by media as long as they are within the confines of what the government/big business dictates. Let's also keep in mind that morality is very subjective. In Sudan a british teacher who allowed a student to name her doll Mohammed is being jailed for 15 days while Sudanese Islamists ask for her death. A french singer who murdered his girlfriend has recently been released from prison after just 3 years because "the people" felt he'd done his time and wanted him back in the music scene. Yes both of these cases are extreme but it's an example of how relative morals can be. My Blog [blogspot.com]

Re:Silenced? Censorship? (1)

Brother Dysk (939885) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533841)

Bertrand Cantat? While technically murder, it was "murder committed with indirect intent (dolus eventualis)". He also served closer to four years, not three (albeit only just). I think it worth noting in this context that "life imprisonment" in a country like Denmark means twenty years - this is the absolute maximum you can serve in prison (or was, until the current government started buying into this whole so-called "war on terror" thing...) and I consider this to be good - can you honestly say you were the same person (in all but a literal sense) twenty years ago?

Internal decision... (0)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531253)

YouTube said the decision to remove Abbas' videos had nothing to do with the Egyptian government, but was rather an internal decision.
This internal decision was made because of the internal management who decided that they like the internally spent money from their internal bank account which was transferred from an unkown party, internally. Or they simply don't want to lose the internal bonus if Egypt decides to block Youtube nationwide, strictly internally speaking.

Re:Internal decision... (3, Informative)

j.sanchez1 (1030764) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531289)

This internal decision was made because of the internal management who decided that they like the internally spent money from their internal bank account which was transferred from an unkown party, internally. Or they simply don't want to lose the internal bonus if Egypt decides to block YouTube nationwide, strictly internally speaking.

The article states that videos with gratuitous or graphic violence is against YouTube's TOS and that is why the account was suspended.

Re:Internal decision... (4, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531507)

In this case though, they should allow them because the graphic nature serves a greater purpose to humanity. In other words, if their policy is hiding a truth that people need to know, they should not apply their policy in that case.

Re:Internal decision... (4, Insightful)

j.sanchez1 (1030764) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531611)

In this case though, they should allow them because the graphic nature serves a greater purpose to humanity. In other words, if their policy is hiding a truth that people need to know, they should not apply their policy in that case.

Don't you think that opens up a bigger can of worms? Applying TOS to some things, and not others, regardless of truth or intent or anything else that is intangible like that seems to me to be dangerous. Apply the TOS across the board, or change the TOS. That should be the only 2 choices.

Re:Internal decision... (1)

websitebroke (996163) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531715)

Life isn't always a simple binary choice.

Re:Internal decision... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21531915)

Life isn't always a simple binary choice.
True, but it IS easier to live that way. Good/Evil, Faithful/Infidel, True/False, Black/White... take away the need to apply reason, and one is spared the agony of providing insightful analysis for their actions. (This might partially explain the blind devotion that can be observed in many circles, especially political and religious ones.)

After all, the party itself never makes mistakes...

Re:Internal decision... (1)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531933)

Life isn't. Conduct standards should be.

GP is right. If we decide to draw the line between shades of gray, where should we draw it?

Re:Internal decision... (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533153)

Personally, I draw it at #999999.

Seriously, black and white rules always fail to deliver satisfactory results. There needs to be some wiggle room in the rules or you end up with the Tyranny of Rules as opposed to the Tyranny of Chaos. Normally, people live between the extremes.

Re:Internal decision... (1)

Chris whatever (980992) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531873)

i'm pretty sure we can find some other video on Utube where some dumb ass teenager film a street fight with his cellphone or filmed himself doing some very very stupid things.

Re:Internal decision... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21532713)


  That is why videos like http://youtube.com/watch?v=rz7UNxnOI3M [youtube.com] and http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ru0bxSqWMdo [youtube.com] and http://youtube.com/watch?v=7UeB0euRQ3k [youtube.com] are not on youtube either? Please, give me a fucking break. How about the video of dead monks in the river during Velvet uprising? You are so full of shit, you and people who modded you up.

  Talking about double standard.

 

Re:Internal decision... (1)

tignom (562076) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533175)

He chose the wrong forum. I think break.com is willing to host videos with graphic violence and unwarranted brutality.

Re:Internal decision... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21532445)

An internal decision could as well be forced by something you can't talk about. Consider investigations under the patriot act such a threat you can't talk about. The patriot act gives the government - or however controls it - a nice anonymous tool to suppress people. Think about it.

And watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8 [youtube.com] etc.

It's too bad YouTube and Yahoo are the only option (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21531261)

Oh wait, they're not! The internet is big. If a PRIVATE COMPANY doesn't want to host your content, they do not have to, and you can take your content elsewhere.

Re:It's too bad YouTube and Yahoo are the only opt (5, Insightful)

pipatron (966506) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531309)

Yeah, we know. And if McDonald's don't want to serve a black person they don't have to, and you can take your business elsewhere. Isn't the free market wonderful!

Re:It's too bad YouTube and Yahoo are the only opt (2, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531583)

And if McDonald's don't want to serve a black person they don't have to, and you can take your business elsewhere.

Discrimination on the basis of race (and some other traits) is illegal in the US. All other, unprotected, kinds of discriminations are legal, although the list of the protected ones is growing.

Isn't the free market wonderful!

Indeed, it is.

Re:It's too bad YouTube and Yahoo are the only opt (4, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532111)

Discrimination on the basis of race (and some other traits) is illegal in the US. All other, unprotected, kinds of discriminations are legal, although the list of the protected ones is growing.

Who claimed that anything was illegal? Are we only allowed to complain about illegal things, and not allowed to discuss the ethics of legal actions?

Re:It's too bad YouTube and Yahoo are the only opt (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533087)

It appears that what he was saying was, quit acting like it was against the law. Don't compare it to something illegal and most likely more severe then the act of removing violent videos from a private site.

I happen to agree. Too often Racism is tossed out and the meaning has become so watered down that the normal reaction to most when hearing about a case is that someone is attempting to get something they don't deserve. Racism and discrimination are very serious offenses and situations. They aren't a trump card to get your way or demonize an opponent. Censor ship is also serious but some site taking something off the web doesn't mean that censorship is happening. That stuff can go back up on any other site and be just as accessible to anyone who could view it before. That isn't the same as Censorship, it is someone using the term censorship to play a trump card or degrade an opponent.

And why is there a problem complaining about the complainers? Do one persons right to complain trump another's right? Aren't the people complaining about the people complaining about the people complaining over Youtube doing just the same? Is there a double standard or is complaining just a normal past time for people?

Also, I have to wonder, are the colleges on break or something? I have seen a lot of Neopolitical comments in the last week to two that seem to have a very stern but also very wrong stance on a lot of semi political topics that get turned into US bashing or Bush Bashing or some sort of bashing. The comments all remind me of first year PS students who all the sudden think they understand everything because of some slanted lessons their professors gave them. It is about as bad as the first year Psych students attempting to diagnose people 3 months into their courses. You can tell which ones they are, they attempt to push opinions as facts instead of facts to reach an opinion.

More free = more wonderful, then, right? (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532221)

And if McDonald's don't want to serve a black person they don't have to, and you can take your business elsewhere.
Discrimination on the basis of race (and some other traits) is illegal in the US. All other, unprotected, kinds of discriminations are legal, although the list of the protected ones is growing.

Isn't the free market wonderful!
Indeed, it is.
So, presumably, if the market were more free, it would be even more wonderful, right? E.g., repealing the law that prevents people from discriminating on the basis of race would make the market more free, so it must be a wonderful idea, right?

Re:More free = more wonderful, then, right? (2, Insightful)

alexgieg (948359) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533353)

So, presumably, if the market were more free, it would be even more wonderful, right? E.g., repealing the law that prevents people from discriminating on the basis of race would make the market more free, so it must be a wonderful idea, right?
Well, on the one hand, the businessman who refused to sell to persons of a given "race" (why do we still use this word?) would lose a sale. On the other hand, the businessman down the street who did not refuse to sell to those same persons would earn a lot more. So, why exactly isn't it a good thing to let racist businessmen punish themselves by following stupid business decisions, all the while allowing the sensible, non-racist ones to profit from the racists' mistakes?

If I were a shop owner I would be sure to make it very clear in my advertising that I sell to anyone from any "race" who's being discriminated in other shops. And at a discount! Let the racists lose sales. I don't mind getting the money. ;-)

It sounds good (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533923)

Unless you're familiar with history. :)

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not." What I'm saying is that your argument sounds reasonable, but does not stand up to what has actually happened in such situations.

Re:It sounds good (1)

alexgieg (948359) | more than 6 years ago | (#21534377)

Unless you're familiar with history. :) "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not." What I'm saying is that your argument sounds reasonable, but does not stand up to what has actually happened in such situations.
Well, I'm not American, so it's true that I'm not all that familiar with the history of racial relations in the US. But I remember that, from what I read on the subject, many of the problems were more related to the racism of political authorities than to the silliness of businessmen.

It's one thing for an idiot to open a "whites only" shop in a town and compete with a "no-restrictions" shop down the street when both can work unhindered and equally protected by the authorities, in a pure free market set up. It's another one completely different when the "no-restrictions" shop is raided and destroyed by white supremacists all the while the racist sheriff doesn't give a damn (and is friends with the supremacists), racist politicians approve laws forcing segregation even upon those who aren't racists, and racist judges condemn blacks who do 'x' to 20 years in prison while a white who did the same gets just a $100 fine and a slap in the wrist.

In the first case, anti-discrimination laws don't make much sense, since all thing being equal, the market itself ends up correcting the situation. In the second case, though, I guess that anti-discrimination laws are a necessity, as the lack of equanimity in the distribution of the law makes it impossible for the free market to solve anything.

The question thus is: in which of the two cases does the US fit nowadays?

Re:It's too bad YouTube and Yahoo are the only opt (1)

Erskin (1651) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532593)

And if McDonald's don't want to serve a black person they don't have to, and you can take your business elsewhere.
Discrimination on the basis of race (and some other traits) is illegal in the US. All other, unprotected, kinds of discriminations are legal, although the list of the protected ones is growing.
Actually, in McDonalds' case, they have the right to refuse service on any grounds, including once that are considered illegal in other realms such as housing and employment. You can restrict whom you sell your stuff too all you want though.

Re:It's too bad YouTube and Yahoo are the only opt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21532895)

However, who is to say they refused that person because of race? They could have refused service to him because he didn't have a shirt on. The point is McDonald's wouldn't allow someone to violate their policy (their TOS so to speak) to someone just because he is of an ethnic minority.

The person violated Yahoo! and YouTube's TOS. He should not get preferential treatment just because he is a journalist. He can always post his videos and blogs elsewhere, where he is not in violation of the TOS.

Re:It's too bad YouTube and Yahoo are the only opt (1)

JustARandomNickname5 (1138439) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532975)

Funny you should choose this example---I live in a predominately "white" area of my city, and all the people who work behind the counter at my local McDonald's are black. Free market indeed!

Re:It's too bad YouTube and Yahoo are the only opt (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531325)

They are not mandated by law not to engage in censorship, but that doesn't mean that this is something other than censorship and I don't have to like it. This is a big difference.

Re:It's too bad YouTube and Yahoo are the only opt (2, Insightful)

Fieryphoenix (1161565) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531865)

"If a PRIVATE COMPANY doesn't want to host your content, they do not have to" But that selfsame PRIVATE COMPANY must bear the consequences of their choice in the PUBLIC OPINION.

Re:It's too bad YouTube and Yahoo are the only opt (1)

celle (906675) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533289)

That's except these companys aren't really private. They are publicly traded and get public support in the form of tax breaks, etc. So, since they are publicly supported (by taxes, etc) then shouldn't they be held to the same legal standards as the government. If they want to make anti-public decisions they shouldn't take tax breaks and should never have gone public. That way you can do whatever you want since truly still would be your company. So, where else does this guy have to go to get the word out?

It's not like the guy was violating copyright. Google this situation smells. It's the real world, WAKE UP!!

internal decision (5, Insightful)

pipatron (966506) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531269)

YouTube said the decision to remove Abbas' videos had nothing to do with the Egyptian government, but was rather an internal decision.

Uhm... internal decision? So they mean that they didn't bother to even wait for the government to order them to remove it? And this is supposed to make them look better or what?

Not really (1)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531437)

That's not "Insightful" in any way.

Youtube's terms of service prohibit graphic violence. The terms of service were violated, and the violator was punished. If this was any other person, posting random violence, there'd be no scandal over his removal.

So why, may I ask, is the Slashdot community so biased over youtube... when clearly the blogger chose to post content he knew to be unacceptable according to the terms of this FREE service.

If this content was removed from his blog... or if his blog was removed... that might be sensorship. But in this case, all Youtube did, was enforce its terms of service.

Re:Not really (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531553)

Ya, and in this case the TOS are shit, because this is more akin to journalism and should NOT be censored, for any reason. People need to know exactly what's going on.

In other words, they're hindering the progress of human rights in Egypt, and I could give a fuck about their TOS in this case.

Re:Not really (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531677)

> Ya, and in this case the TOS are shit, because this is more akin to journalism and should NOT be censored, for any reason. People need to know
> exactly what's going on.

INTO THE STREETS, COMRADE!

Uh...You mean `I think the TOS are shit`. You're entitled to your opinion, and you're entitled to launch your own site on your own servers and get advertisers to advertise on them. They're entitled to protect their advertising income by enforcing their TOS so they don't get advertisers dropping them because they don't want their corporate image sullied with violent images or whatever. So everyone's happy!

Re:Not really (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533091)

Sorry, no. Censorship because of money is wrong. Google isn't entitled to anything, its a company, not a person. If it were as easy as you say to setup my own hosting site, I would. But its not, so we need to rely on whats out there. Choosing to make money instead over getting the truth about human rights violations out there is an immoral choice.

Re:Not really (5, Insightful)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 6 years ago | (#21534059)

They're entitled to protect their advertising income by enforcing their TOS so they don't get advertisers dropping them because they don't want their corporate image sullied with violent images or whatever.

And we are entitled to complain about it - we are entitled to publically state that what they are doing is immoral - we are entitled to think much less of the companies involved - we are entitled to ask them for an explanation - we are entitled to use other services.

What you appear to suggest is "don't complain, just use someone else". You seem to think that complaining has no effect. That's not true, though - clever companies listen to complaints even before the users abandon their services. They change their behaviour not only when it's already costing them money, but also when it appears likely that it might do so. Apart from that - raising the issue gets other people interested, and that puts even more pressure on the company involved.

Voicing our opinions is one of our fundamental rights. Exercising this right may occasionally have negative consequences for companies doing immoral things. Tough cookies if their shareholders don't like it.

Re:Not really (1)

TeraCo (410407) | more than 6 years ago | (#21534361)

Ya, and in this case the TOS are shit, because this is more akin to journalism and should NOT be censored, for any reason. People need to know exactly what's going on.

Just because it's journalistic doesn't mean that it's any more appropriate for youtube. I wouldn't expect 60 minutes to be uploading Iraq war footage to youtube either. There are plenty of other video hosting groups that will host violent footage, use one of those.

Re:Not really (2, Insightful)

dnwq (910646) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531579)

The problem is that you can find some really graphic violence of, say, animals being slaughtered on YouTube. YouTube appears to be selectively enforcing its TOS. Nailing down politically undesirable scenes of violence, while ignoring desired or neutral violence, suggests a major problem with priorities.

Re:Not really (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533689)

Their TOS also prohibits "hate" speech, yet there are countless videos on YouTube posted by white supremacists and jihadists calling for the destruction of Israel. So why aren't those pulled? The implication seems to be that YouTube likes it when neo-nazis and al-Qaeda sympathizers plot the next Holocaust, but not when people try to show how bad things are in other countries.

Re:internal decision (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531949)

What are human rights and free speech compared to corporate monetary gain? How dare anyone suggest that Yahoo! or Youtube or any other money-making entity should be forced to suffer potential revenue loss (due to lack of wheel-greasing by officials in countries that might be upset at them allowing their own citizens to undermine them through these services)!

Re:internal decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21533725)

And this is supposed to make them look better or what?
A monopoly never concerns itself with such trivial concepts as "looking good"

TFA summarized (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21531303)

Censored bloke: "By far the biggest blow to the anti-torture movement in Egypt"

YouTube: "Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it."

Commentary: "OK, why then can I find dozens of videos of people getting tasered by the police? If you ask me, a video of someone getting shocked with a high voltage weapon can definitely be described as graphic violence. And many will argue that the violence in such videos cannot be qualified as gratuitous. ..."

Left in their "Satisfaction Survey" (1)

Morosoph (693565) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531963)

I visited You Tube today to complain about the cancellation of Egyptian blogger Wael Abbas's account.

How can documenting human rights abuses be gratuitous? Your policy is against specifically gratuitous violence, after all. I would ask you and your owner (Google) to reverse this evil, and reinstate him forthwith.

tags (1, Interesting)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531333)

[+] censorship, internet, yahoo, !donotevil (tagging beta)
I can't figure out these tags. What the heck does !donotevil mean???

I assume the ! means Not.
So "Not do not evil" ???
Maybe it's misspelled, Homer. Maybe it's supposed to be donut evil.

Re:tags (2, Informative)

redscare2k4 (1178243) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531403)

I think it refers to the fact that Google OWNS youtube. And that google motto is "do no evil" (why so many people still believe that google, a private company, gives a f about ethics is beyond my understanding). Hence the irony. And of course, this is /. ,and every geek should know that '!' is the standard notation for logical negation in most programming languages :D

Re:tags (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531573)

Google is a public company, NASDAQ stock symbol GOOG.

Re:tags (1)

SterlingSylver (1122973) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533381)

A publicly traded company (held privately) is still private (in the sense that the GP means).

Re:tags (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21533135)

Thanks for the answers, but:
- Google's informal motto [google.com] is "Don't be evil", not "Do no evil", and certainly not "Do *not* evil" (or Do No Tevil??), as is listed in the tag.
- Google is a public company, not a private company.

Re:tags (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 6 years ago | (#21534249)

[...]why so many people still believe that google, a private company, gives a f about ethics is beyond my understanding

Well companies care about their reputation, because being thought of as evil can have a negative impact on business.

The German Police (1)

thegermanpolice (1194811) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531413)

The German Police will be pleased.

Creepy picture (0, Offtopic)

RandoX (828285) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531471)

The journalist at the Guardian looks like somebody I'd expect to find here [familywatchdog.us] .

Internal Decision ? (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531543)

A gut decision maybe? Or just like a gut, full of sh*t.

Google is not Evil ...it is neutral (1)

Janos421 (1136335) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531667)

"Don't be evil" statement does not mean Google wants to be good. They are simply neutral; their business is gathering profiles and providing contents. If a government needs a service (obtaining personal information or closing an account) they'll provide it otherwise they may be censored and loose a market

I've just made an internal decision of my own... (1)

xirtam_work (560625) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531679)

I've just made an internal decision of my own, never to use another Yahoo site, or related property again. That includes Flickr and any other Yahoo owned property.

From now on Yahoo is blocked on my network as well. Sorry, it was an 'internal decision' to block it.

Normal service will resume when (if?) Yahoo pull their socks up.

Re:I've just made an internal decision of my own.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21531905)

Oh right, Yahoo! bought YouTube from Google recently, no?

Re:I've just made an internal decision of my own.. (1)

PolarBearFire (1176791) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531995)

Why are you letting Youtube and parent company off the hook? Oh, Google are the good guys, they say so themselves.

Re:I've just made an internal decision of my own.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21533203)

I've just made an internal decision of my own, never to use another Yahoo site, or related property again. That includes Flickr and any other Yahoo owned property.

From now on Yahoo is blocked on my network as well. Sorry, it was an 'internal decision' to block it.

Normal service will resume when (if?) Yahoo pull their socks up.


I'm curious, what are your views on network neutrality?

Next up: US Blogger Silenced by US Corp. (4, Informative)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531681)

For all those comments saying this has to do with how bad the situation is in Egypt, it does not.
This is indicative of the situation in the US where these corporations exist.
Historical record shows that corporate entities have big financial incentives to aid and abet the suppression of human rights in democratic societies that are closing down and turning into dictatorship states.

Naomi Wolf, an award winning feminist writer who used to be part of the Clinton clique has recently written a book [amazon.com] about this. For those who would like to check it out there is an youtube speech [youtube.com] she gave recently detailing the main concept of her recent research.

The U.S. is in a downward spiral and predictions can be made for what comes next. The attacks are first directed at the margins of society, then the lines get blurred and everyone becomes fair game. Within a year you will hear this happen to an American blogger and many people will defend the action. Journalists are already being harassed, bloggers will come soon after.

It reminds me of a poem I once heard:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Martin Niemöller [wikipedia.org] (1892-1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

Next up: A lesson on the constitution (1, Informative)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531921)

First amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

Note the first word. It says Congress, not Youtube. You have no rights when playing on someone else's property. If you don't like playing by someone else's rules, run your blog from your own server, or somewhere else.

P.S. Reductio ad Hitlerum doesn't help your argument.

Re:Next up: A lesson on the constitution (2, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532271)

I've reread the OP, and I'm trying to see where he claims this is against the constitution?

Re:Next up: A lesson on the constitution (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21532355)

Have you forgotten that the First Amendment also guarantees our right to criticize YouTube's actions? That is, after all, what this thread was about.

It is rather disturbing when people hold up the First Amendment as a reason not to criticize the despicable acts of some private entity.

Re:Next up: A lesson on the constitution (5, Interesting)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532407)

P.S. Reductio ad Hitlerum doesn't help your argument.

I guess you didn't read my post or any of the information I linked.
If you had you would have realized I am talking about early 1930's Germany for the most part. Germany was a parliamentary democracy, fairly liberal and very similar to the U.S. today. Way before Hitler and before the National Socialist party was anything but an outsider. You could easily have the conversation and compare it to ANY fascist state that used to be a democracy and closed in on itself; Italy in the 20's, Russia in the 30's, East Germany in the 50's etc.

Since you mention the Constitution, there are laws being passed as we speak (already passed this year and proposed right now) that dismantle and subvert the constitution.

But as a matter of fact, there are direct links between Hitler, Hitler's financier and Prescott Bush, our current president's grandfather. Prescott Bush was involved in a coup attempt in the U.S. to overthrow FDR. The attempted coup was financed by the same man who financed Hitler. Congressional hearings at the time have evidence of this.
BBC Reference [bbc.co.uk]

Furthermore, the movement within the U.S. government has directly used tactics, imagery, phrases and ideas from fascist Germany in current times and it's directly related to the things that I'm talking about.

I call Bullshit on your pompous invocation of Godwin's law and ask that you at least dig around a bit before responding.

PODCAST [prisonplanet.com] of a radio interview the Alex Jones show for further reference.

Re:Next up: A lesson on the constitution (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532881)

Um what laws are being passed that are against the constitution?

I don't doubt that something might have slid by me but if your still rehashing the arguments about habeas corpus or the warrant-less wiretapping, that tripe has been refuted time and time again. Constitutional scholars have come to accept it as a reality that doesn't violate the constitution. IT just violates people interpretations of the constitution.

So please, let me know if there is actually something to be worried about or is this more biased hand waiving presenting opinions as fact?

Re:Next up: A lesson on the constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21534139)

IT just violates people interpretations of the constitution.

It's the interpretation that counts, because without the interpretation, there is not a single word in the Constitution that permits the government to listen to a phone conversation.

let me know if there is actually something to be worried about

There's likely nothing for you to be worried about, likely you're in the class of people who would say "oh, even if it does say terrible things will happen, it would never be used that way" and call anyone who points out the obvious consequences as a nutter in a tinfoil hat. But for starters, let's go with the "homegrown terrorism" act. Is a "nutter in a tinfoil hat" trying to convince people that a law violates the constitution "radical", and should be put away for complaining about the law? What if they advocate "voting everyone out" but use terms like "get rid of the rats", can that be bent into promoting anti-government "violence" for political purposes?

From there consider the executive order permitting the executive branch to "freeze" assets of people doing anything that could be ill defined as "destabilizing Iraq". Any other case it would be called a "seizure" (similar to seizures of money that take place on a regular basis in the "war on drugs", permanently and without trial) but several high-and-mighty pedants would explode with fury should one suggest that.

Re:Next up: A lesson on the constitution (3, Interesting)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 6 years ago | (#21533567)

"I guess you didn't read my post or any of the information I linked."

No, I didn't read Woolf's book or listen to her speech. I've heard the arguments a dozen times before. You pick a few conditions leading up to Nazi Germany, then compare them to the current administration's policies. It's sloppily researched propaganda. See here:
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1933392797/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?_encoding=UTF8&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R28W0R1KUAZR0H [amazon.com]
And here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy [wikipedia.org]

"Germany was a parliamentary democracy, fairly liberal and very similar to the U.S. today."

No, it was pretty friggin far from the current state of the US. For one, unemployment in Germany was at a staggeringly high 30% in 1932. It's at about 4.5% in the US currently, trending down in the last four years. I bet if you do a little more research, you could find other, rather significant, ways 1930 Germany != 2000 USA. Unless, of course, you are only looking for similarities.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3 [bls.gov]
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERunemployment.htm [schoolnet.co.uk]

"Since you mention the Constitution, there are laws being passed as we speak (already passed this year and proposed right now) that dismantle and subvert the constitution."

Laws cannot dismantle the constitution, only constitutional amendments can. Stupid laws get passed all the time, mainly to increase the power of the state over it's citizens. Welcome to 20th/21st century USA.

"But as a matter of fact, there are direct links between Hitler, Hitler's financier and Prescott Bush, our current president's grandfather."

That's nice, what does it have to do with anything?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html [fallacyfiles.org]
More or less.

"Within a year you will hear this happen to an American blogger and many people will defend the action."

It happens all the time in all types of media. It doesn't matter as long as it's not the government suppressing speech. I can easily visit anarchist, communist, fascist, racist, theocratic, liberal, conservative, and UFO cult religion websites with impunity - where is the organized suppression of thought here? Then again, a lot of media outlets are making a heap of money skewering the Bush regime, maybe it's a conspiracy! :)

"Furthermore, the movement within the U.S. government has directly used tactics, imagery, phrases and ideas from fascist Germany in current times and it's directly related to the things that I'm talking about."

I'm not sure what "Movement" you are talking about, but the political tactics used by Germany have been around before Nietzsche and Machiavelli. I'm not saying it's right, but it certainly isn't a new development, or something indicating a swing toward fascism.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html [fallacyfiles.org]
(Again)

"I call Bullshit on your pompous invocation of Godwin's law and ask that you at least dig around a bit before responding."

I did dig around and found that you are even more wrong than I originally thought. I suggest you link to websites that provide data to back your arguments, not to other people making the same argument as you.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html [fallacyfiles.org]

I suggest you read Chomsky, he does some halfway decent research and uses citations, even if his conclusions are utterly wrong.

Re:Next up: US Blogger Silenced by US Corp. (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532107)

It's the banal manager type that facilitate the western worlds slide into despotism or some other kind of ism by being complicit in this sort of crime. This is an externality of our information industry, the same way a chemical company pumps toxic waste into a river, or the energy industry pumps carbon into the atmosphere.

It's the reason our entire western society strives for mediocrity nowadays, being mediocre is the new black and striving to be the same as everyone else is the only way to get noticed, as soon as you put a video up of someone getting tortured you stand out to much and should be mashed back into the crowd.

You know, you're free to agree with what you are being told, and in that way the failure of the left and right is utterly complete in demonstrating that the corruption results in the same shit, just a different bucket.

It's the kind of violence we need to be aware of as this was committed against an INDIVIDUAL by a STATE, not staged or contrived, not harrasment, but evidence.

We should witness it so we are informed, but they want us in our dumb, complacent, apathetic state of comforted.

Naomi Wolf recently interviewed on DN! (1)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532389)

Naomi Wolf was recently on Democracy Now! [democracynow.org] talking about "The End of America" (transcript [democracynow.org] , low-bandwidth audio [archive.org] , high-bandwidth audio [archive.org] , low-bandwidth video [archive.org] , high-bandwidth video [archive.org] ).

Re:Next up: US Blogger Silenced by US Corp. (1)

lysse (516445) | more than 6 years ago | (#21534039)

Naomi Wolf... has recently written a book about this. For those who would like to check it out there is a youtube speech...


Not for much longer though, eh?

Pwned (2)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531711)

Shouldn't this be on the news? I mean they show stuff like this on the news....

Oh, I forgot...

TFA doesn't mention Yahoo (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21531733)

Where did you get that Yahoo suspended his accounts from? TFA (must be a first!) doesn't mention it at all...

Yahoo!? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21531753)

And what has this story to do with Yahoo!?

Whistleblower sites (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531889)

There are a growing number of "whistleblower" that follow political corruption, though many are just wikis. Do any of those allow for video uploads?

I think it's the yahoo at the end (1)

Martian_Kyo (1161137) | more than 6 years ago | (#21531923)

is highly unprofessional
there is no need to be joyful of this bloggers misfortune.

Re:I think it's the yahoo at the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21532603)

"I think it's the yahoo at the end"


Right ... it's the end of Yahoo! when people really believe YouTube is owned by Yahoo! ...

Um... Yahoo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21532055)

I did RTFA, and I didn't see any mention of Yahoo.

Not that I think they really deserve defending, but in this case, if they didn't do anything, it's not really fair to blame them in the headline...

Youtube starting to get weird (2, Interesting)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532089)

Ive been watching youtube videos on and off for over a year now and lately I have noticed everything is becoming sanitised and Disney like. I often see commentary videos pulled that I have already seen for the most vague reasons. I suspect now that Youtube is being paid to insert viral advertising videos into the cloud Youtube wants to make sure their new paying masters dont have much criticism happening.

Cynical title (5, Funny)

frenchbedroom (936100) | more than 6 years ago | (#21532289)

Egyptian Blogger Silenced by YouTube, Yahoo!

That has to be the most cynical title ever given to a Slashdot article. What's next ?

Chinese Journalist Muffled by Government, Hurray!

American Civilian Tasered by Police, Yipee!

Re:Cynical title (1)

afedaken (263115) | more than 6 years ago | (#21534355)

Has slashdot ever spoken about how they title the stories they publish on the front page? Granted, slashdot isn't really a traditional news organization, but there are accepted standards for how a headline should be written. The AP stylebook comes to mind, and in my long ago forgotten journalism class, IIRC there being a particular standard.

Frank Zappa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21533563)

A friend of mine made alot of youtube videos and gathered a small following.

Til he released a video based upon Heavenly Bank Account by Frank Zappa.

He did the typical and spliced video into his own video.

And he lost his account.

Disassociation (1)

Trintech (1137007) | more than 6 years ago | (#21534107)

First I want to say that I am strongly opposed to any sort or censorship and if I thought these companies were trying to censor him I would be upset but I don't really think this is the case.

I agree with many other posters that have pointed out all the tazer videos on Youtube have not been taken down but I think that most people would agree that being brutally beaten is more graphic (atleast in terms of blood) then someone who is being tazered. I would also agree that a mature content flag should be sufficient to warn people about this content but I think here is where YouTube and Yahoo! get into trouble. By letting this video stay posted, YouTube and Yahoo! are saying that this content does not violate their TOS and can be posted on the site. This leaves them a sitting duck for action/legislation initiated by people who were offended by the video wanting these companies to verify that people watching these videos are of a suitable age. Obviously it is not in YouTubes or Yahoo!s interest to make their content any harder to access or have to spend money verifying peoples age. I think this was just a very political move by these companies to try and avoid any governments getting involved period.

Bigger picture here (1)

jskline (301574) | more than 6 years ago | (#21534259)

There is a much bigger picture going here. Between this issue being discussed, and the teacher that was muzzled, thrown in jail and threatened with being lashed and all has given pause to ask the question; "Why are we still doing business with these nations then?". I am beginning to see how two-faced many of us are when we are more interested in their oil and ability to fly over their country when we're defending ours, etc.

If you really want to put an end to this mess, stop buying large SUV's, trucks, and things that use a lot of gas, and get something efficient or non-petroleum based. The sudden down-turn in the income of the Saudis, Egypt, Sudan, and lots of those places will put their economy into a downward spiral. Knowing what I know about these countries, I would never go there as a tourist because being a Christian is against the law in many of those places. I don't see why my money has to keep going there to support that 2nd century mindset that rules the day there.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?