ATG
Banned
+5,233|6500|Global Command
Enter Fox News pundit, author and top-rated blogger Michelle Malkin. Last week she received notice from YouTube, the world’s most popular video sharing service, that her video had been deemed “offensive.” The result? Her account was terminated and her videos deleted.

YouTube refused to say why her videos were “offensive” and there was no avenue available to challenge the decision. Today, her videos are gone and her voice is suppressed on the most important video “node” on the Internet.

Google bought YouTube — a company that has never made a dime — for $1.65 billion. YouTube fits very well within the Google online media portfolio. The company already owns Blogger.com, the most popular blog hosting site online, and Google News, which in two short years has become one of the top news sites in the world.

Don’t think it matters? Consider that, according to USA Today, 98 percent of the money donated to political parties by Google employees — “Google Millionaires” — went to Democrats.
Also;

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.a … E_ID=52405

At first they flagged the video with a rating for adults only thereby sending it to a part of the listings that usually see less traffic.
This demonstrates the potential propaganda machine Youtube could become. By allowing or not allowing some types of videos based on political content.
Google is a monster enterprise, methinks somewhat dangerous possibly.
Here is the video. You libs will really appreciate this...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h3GPc_yMCE [/youtube]
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6471|Los Angeles
Last I checked, YouTube can do whatever the hell they want with their own site that they made.

Liberals run the media. We demand attention. We want to be famous. Daddy didn't pay attention to us. Whatever the reason doesn't matter. We're just better at being creative and entertaining.

Conservatives are better at organizing. At finding consensus. At winning. Hence the Republican party's history of pwnage whilst Democrats just kind of stand by, mouth agape, once in a while taking the reins when they've got a charismatic leader or when Republicans fuck up.

Thus spake Zarathustra.
bigp66
Member
+63|6519|memphfrica-memphis,TN
that is true, if it weren't for Clinton the North Koreans Crissy would not be here or most of the world terrorist conflicts.  Its a good thing we have Bush
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6500|Global Command
Just think...he was almost our president.
https://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8536/devilgore3of.jpg
BVC
Member
+325|6666
Dodgy, google!  Very dodgy!
Snipedya14
Dont tread on me
+77|6666|Mountains of West Virginia
AH but is youtube and google public entities? No. They can contribute to whomever, and remove whatever the hell they want. They have no standards to fairness, and to my knowledge dont claim to.

I think it is a little biased yes, but what media isnt?

Also, removing a video from a fox news reporter and the Jihad, thats quite a leap ATG
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6680|Wilmington, DE, US
Malkin's just trying to be like Coulter except she can't do anything controversial except something involving YouTube. Minor leagues.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6532

bigp66 wrote:

that is true, if it weren't for Clinton the North Koreans Crissy would not be here or most of the world terrorist conflicts.  Its a good thing we have Bush
See, there are two possibilities here:

Either Clinton did appease the terrorists, in which case the conflict would still be here it just would have started earlier

Or he didn't, either because it didn't exist or he did try to stop it, in which case there is no grounds for criticism.

Regarding the original post, I don't see the problem.  It isn't an unbiased media source, nor does it claim to be.  They can do whatever they want with their bandwidth.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

Snipedya14 wrote:

Also, removing a video from a fox news reporter and the Jihad, thats quite a leap ATG
I thought it was sarcasm, not a leap. Sure, Youtube can do whatever they want, but the same also applies for critics. Removing a video that mild is just immature, considering the content Youtube leaves untouched. It reminds me of some kid admin on a clan server kicking someone because their team's getting shot up.

But no matter what anyone does, that thing will stay on the internet forever.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-10-12 23:51:38)

JimmyBotswana
Member
+82|6556|Montreal
Plus it is offensive the whole thing is a pack of lies and stereotypes, and YouTube pulled it when "customers" complained about it. MY GOD a company listening to complaints from customers. Weird.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

JimmyBotswana wrote:

Plus it is offensive the whole thing is a pack of lies and stereotypes, and YouTube pulled it when "customers" complained about it. MY GOD a company listening to complaints from customers. Weird.
Hmm. Then how come none of the stereotypical bash-the-right stuff isn't removed? I see plenty of complaints about that. Or does Youtube deserve special rights in immunity to criticism just because this video was taken down?

But what did you expect? Mild flavor? It was directed by the Scary Movie guy, damn!

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-10-12 23:56:31)

Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6532
Actually, so far as I can tell they didn't pull it: it had the warning because any video reported has that warning until it's checked.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

Bubbalo wrote:

Actually, so far as I can tell they didn't pull it: it had the warning because any video reported has that warning until it's checked.
Probably the one problem with pulling a video on a site like Youtube is dealing with all the duplicates and reposts.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-10-13 00:31:09)

Havazn
Member
+39|6665|van.ca
So what?

Google is a bunch of democrats that pulled an anti-democrat video. As far as I know, internet media is not regulated by the FCC (unless someone can correct me). They do not have to follow regulations like "equal on air time"

Preventing this sort of propaganda being spread is hardly contributing to the "Jihad"
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

Havazn wrote:

So what?

Google is a bunch of democrats that pulled an anti-democrat video. As far as I know, internet media is not regulated by the FCC (unless someone can correct me). They do not have to follow regulations like "equal on air time"

Preventing this sort of propaganda being spread is hardly contributing to the "Jihad"
"In netspace, nobody can hear your sarcasm."

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-10-13 01:00:41)

Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6532

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Probably the one problem with pulling a video on a site like Youtube is dealing with all the duplicates and reposts.
Regardless of their motives, the fact is they did nothing wrong.  An automated system reacted to a user flagging.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

Bubbalo wrote:

Regardless of their motives, the fact is they did nothing wrong.  An automated system reacted to a user flagging.
"Maryrose, of The YouTube Team, said if any video viewer flags a video as inappropriate, it is forwarded to a queue for the company's customer support team to review.

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


But WorldNetDaily has one part wrong:

"The company announced a "flagging" policy change just this week, about the time that a controversial spoof by Republican filmmaker David Zucker depicting former Secretary of State Madeline Albright as a cheerleader for Islamic terrorists started appearing with a warning page in front, requiring verification that a viewer is 18 before the video will appear."

The portrayed Madeline did not act as a cheerleader for Islamic terrorists, but she did swing pom-poms around for our favorite North Korean leader as he was trying to slam dunk his Michael Jordan basketball. Perhaps youtube should institute a political commentary flag for submitted material that restricts user flagging. It could be abused of course, but it's a thought.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-10-13 02:07:05)

Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6532
Which still means the video will first have to be flagged and checked, and I imagine once a video's been cleared once it cannot be re-flagged.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

Bubbalo wrote:

Which still means the video will first have to be flagged and checked, and I imagine once a video's been cleared once it cannot be re-flagged.
But one of them was scanned and removed. However, their current process has not removed these copies, so I can't exactly say that they're on a very active anti-conservative campaign.
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6680|Wilmington, DE, US
You know, I wouldn't be surprised if they flagged this video themselves.
Snipedya14
Dont tread on me
+77|6666|Mountains of West Virginia

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Snipedya14 wrote:

Also, removing a video from a fox news reporter and the Jihad, thats quite a leap ATG
I thought it was sarcasm, not a leap. Sure, Youtube can do whatever they want, but the same also applies for critics. Removing a video that mild is just immature, considering the content Youtube leaves untouched. It reminds me of some kid admin on a clan server kicking someone because their team's getting shot up.

But no matter what anyone does, that thing will stay on the internet forever.
First off, I thought the smiley face was somewhat of a giveaway that I was being sarcastic as well.

Secondly, immature? I think you are missing the point. They can do what they want. You may not agree with it, but that doesnt really matter what we think does it?
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6500|Global Command

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

JimmyBotswana wrote:

Plus it is offensive the whole thing is a pack of lies and stereotypes, and YouTube pulled it when "customers" complained about it. MY GOD a company listening to complaints from customers. Weird.
Hmm. Then how come none of the stereotypical bash-the-right stuff isn't removed? I see plenty of complaints about that. Or does Youtube deserve special rights in immunity to criticism just because this video was taken down?
+1


Youtube will become a monster.
In the future, more and more people will use it.
The are setting a bad precedent by becoming thought police so early.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6532

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

But one of them was scanned and removed.
Where does it say that?
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6661|Tampa Bay Florida

Bubbalo wrote:

It isn't an unbiased media source, nor does it claim to be.  They can do whatever they want with their bandwidth.
QFE

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-10-13 08:55:08)

The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6471|Los Angeles
The video in the OP is on YouTube. Yet it's making fun of liberals. But all youse guys are saying YouTube pulls stuff because they are liberals. Does not compute does not compute.

Anyway, I don't think Albright's gift to KJI can match the wonderful gift Bush The First gave to Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa. When a basketball just doesn't say enough, ALWAYS do your host a favor and projectile-vomit Japanese beef steak into his lap.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard